[PASSED] Individual Working Freedoms II

[Kelinfort]

" Not only is this piece of legislation a gross overreach of WA powers far worst than the controversial Reproductive Freedoms resolution, its mandates impact employees in a ludicrous fashion, claiming that "working restrictions" reduce individual liberty. As it stands, this resolution is too strong for my nation to consider it. Perhaps allowing workers to choose whether to work more than the maximum would be a much superior idea."

--Ambassador Feodor.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"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!"

Yes...and presumably the wording of the very next clause -- "Reserves the right of all nations to choose whether to set specific regulations on workweeks and working time in the general public interest" -- still allows you to keep those regulations. Of course, this had already been pointed out to you, before this went to vote, but apparently slipped your mind after your last coke-snorting bender. All Clause 3 mandates is that the principle of "individual liberty" be upheld in any such regulations. If your resolution-reader (which you are required to employ under RTRA) is incapable of figuring out such simple yet such flexible language, then I pity you.

The Federal Republic is pleased to support this resolution.

[Equalitria]

"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."

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?

[Separatist Peoples]

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?

"Yes, I am. Because it serves as a blocker for those who would attempt to mandate hour-specific workweeks. There have been plenty of such attempts, all of which have been far more restrictive then this, and some have gained traction. We've seen in the Fertile Farmland Act that any dreck can make it to vote, regardless of how flawed it is. Considering there is no mechanism for the WA to interpret what constitutes "reasonable" or not in this bill, we have to rely on the Reasonable Nation Theory, specifically in that a bill shouldn't have to consider nations that would circumvent a bill in such a way that is unprofitable or without net gains, and that, without specific delineations made, or a committee so empowered, the resulting gray area is left to member states to determine. In short, it's a textbook blocker."

[Jakuso]

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.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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.

And that's exactly what this act does. Too bad you voted against.

[Communal Ecotopia]

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?

That is, in fact, what we do.

[Chester Pearson]

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.

Nationstate Democracy bullsit again? If you are going to argue that premise please learn what the fuck it means...

Or better yet? If you don't like this you have two options: Quit the WA and were all better off, or fall on your face trying to repeal it. Either way your one whole vote means dick.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

The Organic Vegan Commune of Frustrated Franciscans
Official Delegation to the World Assembly
“We praise You, Lord, for Sister Death!”
Friar John Sanders, OFM Ambassador and WA representative
Friar Tuck Ferguson, OFM Assistant Ambassador
Brother Maynard, TOR Keeper of the Holy Hand-grenade

After giving this resolution due consideration, we have decided to vote for this exceptionally fine resolution.

[ALMF]

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?

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."

-- His Royal Highness Isibela Cretack Hair Apparent to Crown Prince Quellar and ambassador from the Allied Letter of Marque Freeholds to the World Asembly.

[Equalitria]

In short, it's a textbook blocker."

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.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

In short, it's a textbook blocker."

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.

[ALMF]

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.

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,

[Equalitria]

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.

I'm not doing both. I've insisted that it's not merely a blocker, that the "mandate" language of clause 3 empowers the WA to create the very sort of universal standard which the bill itself purports to prevent. If the bill isn't intended to contain the potential for restrictive interpretation, then it shouldn't be written such that that is the case.

[Jacobstein]

I ENCOURAGE ALL NATIONS TO VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION

It is a blatant over reach of power by the WA and should not be allowed to do this.

By deregulating employment in all member nations, it forces worker loving nations to forfeit their ability to protect the worker from Employer abuse. This violates a central tenant of the WA's constitution by not allowing a nation to regulate its economy and business as it pleases.

[Jacobstein]

"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,

Thank you!

[Ardchoilleans]

... The solution to restrictive potential policy is not to issue restrictive actual policy.

The deleriously happy workers' paradise of Ardchoille would find it possible to live with this Resolution. Thanks to its elegantly flexible wording, should it pass, we could still preserve our international status as a nation that's smugly, even nauseatingly, WA-compliant. Yet we could continue to go our merry way of decent treatment for workers via support for unionism, well-regulated conciliation and arbitration procedures and a free, secular and public education system that actually does allow everyone to realise their full potential.

We formally note that our government's "interference in making decisions governing their personal lives" is never "undue", but done in the best interests of our community. The question of working conditions, including hours, is indeed "an issue for private negotiation between employer and employee" -- via their representatives, where appropriate, and it's always appropriate to keep the playing field level, particularly when it comes to being able to hire high-powered and expensive lawyers.

Proudly, we confirm that nowhere in our multiple volumes of "working time regulations" are there any "that serve only to reduce individual liberty", and agree that our careful and balanced domestic legislation in this area does unquestionably promote "a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making".

However, by voting for the Resolution we would block one of the avenues by which the World Assembly might some day ensure that the benefits that are such an ornament of our system could be extended to the workers of other nations. Therefore we must, despite our unabashed admiration for the author's thoughtful and conciliatory phrasing, vote against the Resolution.

-- William Edward Kelly, convenor of ArdchoilleaNS, Pesident Emeritus of the Ardchoillean Council of Trade Unions.

[Chester Pearson]

This resolution could not have possibly worked out better for The Federation. As we are technically not members, and thus not legally bound by the terms of this, The Council has decided to change a few words to make this better. The council, has decided to extend these freedoms only to non-citizens such as those engaged on our "temporary foreign workers program". As corporations in member nations are now permitted to work their employees to death, production in those nations will skyrocket. As such, the need for raw materials will also skyrocket, and The Federation will gladly supply those resources at "reasonable" costs. At the same time, produced materials will flood the market, allow us to import them at rock bottom prices. Our economy is expected to triple because of this one resolution....

Like I said, very well done Gruen!

Warmest regards,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"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,

Hmm...not sure if I'm convinced yet. Try saying "tyranny" a few times more.

[Lexicor]

At last the left-wing attempts of micromanaging of the private firms in Lexicor will be foiled! An expected increase in economic output is expected in the next Quarter! We proudly vote in support of this resolution.

- [Legitimate] Ambassador to the WA
Jean-Luc Braussaurd

[Chester Pearson]

A list of elements that are EACH, and severally, MORE RESTRICTIVE than what it supposedly blocks:

Hmm...not sure if I'm convinced yet. Try saying "tyranny" a few times more.

Stop being such a tyrant Kenny!

[ALMF]

A list of elements that are EACH, and severally, MORE RESTRICTIVE than what it supposedly blocks:

Hmm...not sure if I'm convinced yet. Try saying "tyranny" a few times more.

If people quit trying to impose tyranny and call it freedom, we will no longer have to point out it is tyranny.

[Separatist Peoples]

Hmm...not sure if I'm convinced yet. Try saying "tyranny" a few times more.

If people quit trying to impose tyranny and call it freedom, we will no longer have to point out it is tyranny.

"Except you don't actually support your assertions. You just declare it "tyranny" in fabulous colors and pat yourself on the back."

[Araraukar]

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."

If that's a quote, provide the source? It has so many typos (which also make it not say what it appears to say) it's hard to believe it's yours.

I've insisted that it's not merely a blocker

Anything that would be just a blocker and nothing more, would be illegal under the proposal rules.

If people quit trying to impose tyranny and call it freedom, we will no longer have to point out it is tyranny.

"Except you don't actually support your assertions. You just declare it "tyranny" in fabulous colors and pat yourself on the back."

Oh, but TYRANNY is such a fabulous word, isn't it? It's like yelling racist in a debate to silence the opposition.

[Jacobstein]

The current resolution in the General Assembly is by far the most outrageous resolution that I have read. In the name of freedom, it restricts nations from requiring employers to pay certain amounts, pay overtime after the 40 hour work week, and further destroys the ideals of worker control by making it an individual negotiating with a boss who is rule him at his work. Despite this nation's view on it, where does the World Assembly have the right in its constitution to prevent a nation from regulating its business and economy??? What power does it hold to enforce Capitalist Ideals onto leftist countries? Why should we have to pass laws that are against everything socialists and labor movements have ever worked for? It does not have this authority and it must be stopped!

Below, I will show how the resolution is not about freedom, but about giving employers power at the cost of the workers by coercing the state to enforce laws that are against its very foundations!

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.

Strongly reaffirming its commitment to individual liberty,

To start with, the WA does not have a commitment to individual liberty. It has a commitment to NATIONAL liberty, the ability of a nation to rule its people as it sees fit. Second, this resolution does not ensure personal liberty, but personal slavery to an employer who has time and time again shown to have no care for workers' rights!

Believing that individuals should be as free as possible from undue government interference in making decisions governing their personal lives,

Jacobstein shares this belief too, but this is not about the personal lives of employees. This resolution gives power to the employer to work a man for as long as he wishes and as hard as he wishes without worrying about compensation for time spent on the job and without heed to the need of food, of break, of sleep, and of leisure time to oneself without having to use what little time they have away from work to do things they need to do. Employers are notorious for mistreating their employees in the name of profit. By trying to stay out of the way, the WA is enforcing personal slavery to the employer with no repercussions! This is not the WA's place to take a stance on and it most certainly should not do it as slavery!

Considering any attempt to impose a universal manacle of working time restriction to be a grossly unfair abrogation of individual freedoms,

I would like to remind the writer of this resolution and the members of the WA what is being done in these laws. The worker is not required to stop working, the employer is simply required to compensate him for his extra time spent over a certain amount of hours. The Employee himself is not being limited, the employer is. To say that limiting the time that the employer can work a worker without extra compensation is limiting the employee is preposterous! And again, WHAT PLACE DOES THE WA HAVE TO LEGISLATE THIS? This is forcing countries to not regulate their businesses as they see fit. In the name of freedom, you are restricting nations from exorcising their protected rights! How dare they even suggest this!

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;

You are saying that the protections offered to overworked employees who would otherwise being working longer and harder without proper compensation is a restriction of their freedom? It is a restriction of the EMPLOYER'S freedom, not the workers! The Employers were limited because they were oppressing and coercing their employees to work long, hard hours with little to know compensation for it. The labor movements brought that to an end with these laws! But now, the WA wishes to take them away? NEVER! Where is its authority to do this? To tell our nations how to regulate our own economies and businesses! They have NONE!

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;

We do respect the right of a worker to decide the terms of their employment. However, we also protect our workers from being overworked without proper compensation via overtime based on a 40 hour work week. Again, in the name of freedom, you are taking away protections for workers against their totalitarian bosses. And I'll ask again: WHERE DOES THE WA HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS?

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;

How can these two lines even coexist? In one sentence, the resolution destroys everything Leftists love and the next allows them to set regulations? That doesn't make sense. If anything, it renders the whole resolution pointless! And where does the WA have the authority to say how Jacobstein or any other nation regulates its economy! It does not!

Promotes a healthy harmony of national and individual rights in economic decision-making.

Then turns around and gives power to the employer and not the individual worker. This whole resolution is an over reach of power, counter productive and self voiding.

Nations of the world, I beg of you.

DO NOT PASS THIS RESOLUTION!!!