Advertisement
by Kelinfort » Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:19 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:26 am
Hakio wrote:"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!"
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:29 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"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."
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:31 am
Equalitria wrote:
The legislation implies, however, that the WA would be the interpreting body, not the individual nation. After all, if this is not the case, and the nation interprets the legislation, then the bill effectively has no teeth at all. How does a WA-level "mandate" work, when its conditions are determined entirely by individual member nations at the domestic level? "Offending" nations would be free to paint baldly anti-"individual liberty" working time policy any way they deem fit. Are you suggesting that the bill is pointless? If so, why should it be up for a vote in the first place?
by Jakuso » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:30 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am
Jakuso wrote:It should be a matter of the individual companies to determine how their employees are treated in terms of payment and working hours. Isn't that the whole point of a job description? Of course the businesses should follow employment and payment laws that are approved at the sovereign level that are decided by nationstate democracy.
by Communal Ecotopia » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:55 am
by Chester Pearson » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:13 am
Jakuso wrote:This resolution wants to establish rules that would effectively get rid of worker freedom. It should be a matter of the individual companies to determine how their employees are treated in terms of payment and working hours. Isn't that the whole point of a job description? Of course the businesses should follow employment and payment laws that are approved at the sovereign level that are decided by nationstate democracy. Therefore in the meantime, Yakus shall be voting AGAINST this resolution.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Frustrated Franciscans » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:08 am
by ALMF » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:05 pm
If this is the alternative than, 1.000 times, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whereas we would vote agenst a 30 we support a 50 and wold be neutral on a 40.
We hold this to be a self evident attack on employees of the world. We further hold to be self evident, without tight restrictions on employer demands NO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is POSSIBLE. Needless to say we OPPOSE this legislation witch wold be most honestly titled "In Defence of Tyranny."
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:55 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:In short, it's a textbook blocker."
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:10 pm
by ALMF » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:39 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Equalitria wrote:
Except it's not merely a "blocker," because it comes with forceful, ideological underpinnings attached. The solution to restrictive potential policy is not to issue restrictive actual policy.
"Restrictive"? I really don't know how much more flexible the author possibly could have made the text. I mean, "reduce individual liberty" could mean practically anything, or nothing at all. In short, you can oppose this because it's a blocker and not restrictive enough, or you can oppose it because it's too restrictive; you cannot possibly do both.
Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,
Economic tyranny should be supported by the WA as "freedom."
Considering any attempt to impose a universal manacle of working time restriction to be a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,
Freedom is tyranny.
Encourages all nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;The WA seeks to protect economic tyranny.
Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose
An "individual liberty" is fabricated to protect tyranny from freedom.
Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.
It is a compromise to balance economic tyranny protection and government power WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DISASTROUS EFFECT ON VICTIMS OF THE TYRANNY,
by Equalitria » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:54 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:In short, you can oppose this because it's a blocker and not restrictive enough, or you can oppose it because it's too restrictive; you cannot possibly do both.
by Jacobstein » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:01 pm
by Jacobstein » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:02 pm
ALMF wrote:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"Restrictive"? I really don't know how much more flexible the author possibly could have made the text. I mean, "reduce individual liberty" could mean practically anything, or nothing at all. In short, you can oppose this because it's a blocker and not restrictive enough, or you can oppose it because it's too restrictive; you cannot possibly do both.
A list of elements that are EACH, and severally, MORE RESTRICTIVE than what it supposedly blocks:Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,
Economic tyranny should be supported by the WA as "freedom."
Considering any attempt to impose a universal manacle of working time restriction to be a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,
Freedom is tyranny.
Encourages all nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;The WA seeks to protect economic tyranny.
Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose
An "individual liberty" is fabricated to protect tyranny from freedom.
Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.
It is a compromise to balance economic tyranny protection and government power WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DISASTROUS EFFECT ON VICTIMS OF THE TYRANNY,
by Ardchoilleans » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:14 pm
Equalitria wrote: ... The solution to restrictive potential policy is not to issue restrictive actual policy.
by Chester Pearson » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:23 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:37 pm
ALMF wrote:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"Restrictive"? I really don't know how much more flexible the author possibly could have made the text. I mean, "reduce individual liberty" could mean practically anything, or nothing at all. In short, you can oppose this because it's a blocker and not restrictive enough, or you can oppose it because it's too restrictive; you cannot possibly do both.
A list of elements that are EACH, and severally, MORE RESTRICTIVE than what it supposedly blocks:Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,
Economic tyranny should be supported by the WA as "freedom."
Considering any attempt to impose a universal manacle of working time restriction to be a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,
Freedom is tyranny.
Encourages all nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;The WA seeks to protect economic tyranny.
Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose
An "individual liberty" is fabricated to protect tyranny from freedom.
Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.
It is a compromise to balance economic tyranny protection and government power WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DISASTROUS EFFECT ON VICTIMS OF THE TYRANNY,
by Lexicor » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:40 pm
by Chester Pearson » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:41 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by ALMF » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:53 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:56 pm
by Araraukar » Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:23 pm
ALMF wrote:If this is the alternative than, 1.000 times, yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whereas we would vote agenst a 30 we support a 50 and wold be neutral on a 40.
We hold this to be a self evident attack on employees of the world. We further hold to be self evident, without tight restrictions on employer demands NO INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is POSSIBLE. Needless to say we OPPOSE this legislation witch wold be most honestly titled "In Defence of Tyranny."
Equalitria wrote:I've insisted that it's not merely a blocker
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Jacobstein » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:14 pm
Description: The World Assembly,
Strongly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,
Believing that individuals should be as free as possible from undue government interference in making decisions governing their personal lives,
Convinced that the issues of when, how often, and for how long an individual works should remain an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee,
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,
Considering any attempt to impose a universal manacle of working time restriction to be a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,
Desirous of reaching a fair compromise on the issue:
Encourages all nations to grant their people the greatest possible degree of freedom in determining their terms of employment, with specific regard to working time;
Calls upon all nations to respect the rights of individuals to be free to make choices about their terms of employment, and equally of individuals to seek representation or counsel during such negotiations;
Mandates the removal of working time regulations that serve only to reduce individual liberty and that do not serve any other purpose;
Reserves the right of all nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest;
Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]
Advertisement