[DRAFT] Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms"

[United Massachusetts]

---

Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms"
Category: Repeal | Target: 302 GA | Proposed by: United Massachusetts

---

Noting the noble motives of 302 GA, namely, to prevent the micromanagement of national economies at an international level,

Rejecting, alongside 302 GA, the imposition of a hard limit on the workweek or on workhours at an international level due to the differing needs of individuals in different species,

Believing, however, that some sort of carefully-crafted international legislation regarding workhours is neccesary in order to protect individuals from economic exploitation and effective enslavement to a corporate entity,

Afraid that the lack of such substantive, international action neccesarily leads to a 'race to the bottom' of labour deregulation, as member nations try to keep up with each other in industry,

Seeking also a resolution to protect the rights of paid family leave,

Yearning, therefore, in the name of worker's rights, to place the issue of workhours back into the domain of the General Assembly,

The General Assembly, by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof, does hereby repeal 302 GA, "Individual Working Freedoms."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Support.

IC: "No support."

[The First German Order]

"No support."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Substantively opposed. The target of the repeal serves its purpose of reducing the ability of the radical left-wing elements of this assembly from imposing further destructive anti-life controls on the economic freedom enjoyed by right thinking peoples. We see no reason to repeal such a crucial bulwark of liberty."

[United Massachusetts]

"Substantively opposed. The target of the repeal serves its purpose of reducing the ability of the radical left-wing elements of this assembly from imposing further destructive anti-life controls on the economic freedom enjoyed by right thinking peoples. We see no reason to repeal such a crucial bulwark of liberty."

"Reasonable working conditions are clearly a radical leftist plot. Clearly."

[Kenmoria]

"Opposed on principle, there is almost nothing you could do to gain support for repealing this piece of law."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Could you link the resolution in the OP?

[Christian Democrats]

We would support this repeal proposal, but we would also prefer a simpler "repeals" clause.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This is a pointless repeal. There's no way a replacement could adequately deal with a working week without running up against one of two problems. Either it would be excessive micromanagement which would draw the ire of the species/tech wank brigade or if it's worded to suit them, will be full of meaningless buzzwords such as reasonable and suitable to local conditions, etc.

Please draft your replacement first if you wish to disprove this.

Also, leave out the "by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof" nonsense.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Substantively opposed. The target of the repeal serves its purpose of reducing the ability of the radical left-wing elements of this assembly from imposing further destructive anti-life controls on the economic freedom enjoyed by right thinking peoples. We see no reason to repeal such a crucial bulwark of liberty."

"Reasonable working conditions are clearly a radical leftist plot. Clearly."

"Considering the unfortunate pronouncements of this body in the past, interpreting 'reasonable' to mean 'the position taken by the radical leftist fringe elite in their crusade to destroy civilization' seems the most appropriate default interpretation to us. If you would like to show us your intended replacement and prove that assessment wrong, feel free. Until then, we will continue to assume any replacement will further undermine liberty, good sense, and the natural law."

[United Massachusetts]

"Fine then. I'll write a replacement."

[Aclion]

OOC: This is a pointless repeal. There's no way a replacement could adequately deal with a working week without running up against one of two problems. Either it would be excessive micromanagement which would draw the ire of the species/tech wank brigade or if it's worded to suit them, will be full of meaningless buzzwords such as reasonable and suitable to local conditions, etc.

Or it will use a committee.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: This is a pointless repeal. There's no way a replacement could adequately deal with a working week without running up against one of two problems. Either it would be excessive micromanagement which would draw the ire of the species/tech wank brigade or if it's worded to suit them, will be full of meaningless buzzwords such as reasonable and suitable to local conditions, etc.

Or it will use a committee.

Is using a committee a problem?

[Araraukar]

Is using a committee a problem?

OOC: Yes.

[United Massachusetts]

Is using a committee a problem?

OOC: Yes.

Why?

[Masurbia]

OOC: Yes.

Why?

You cannot use a committee or legislate in a repeal. That is what you're talking about? Right?

[Stoskavanya]

OOC: Yes.

Why?

This is by no means a representative answer but I think using an infallible committee to solve legislative problems is unimaginative.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Yes.

Why?

OOC: Committees are not bad things. It's just inelegant to use them to get around writing very important policy. It's sort of a cop out, but it also gives players a lot of leeway in ignoring the spirit of the resolution if there are not explicit instructions.

[Aclion]

So long as the standards used by the committee are laid out clearly enough that it's not an invitation to do whatever you want then yes, they're fine.

[Mazemba]

OOC: This is a pointless repeal. There's no way a replacement could adequately deal with a working week without running up against one of two problems. Either it would be excessive micromanagement which would draw the ire of the species/tech wank brigade or if it's worded to suit them, will be full of meaningless buzzwords such as reasonable and suitable to local conditions, etc.

OOC: The species/tech wank brigade (excellent name by the way) are noisy on this forum but effectively disregarded by the wider WA electorate - the recent proposal on protecting the ozone layer was a good illustration of that. They only need to be appeased enough to avoid a legal challenge.

Also, leave out the "by the advice and consent of the Delegates and member nations thereof" nonsense.

So much this.

[Tinfect]

OOC: The species/tech wank brigade (excellent name by the way) are noisy on this forum but effectively disregarded by the wider WA electorate - the recent proposal on protecting the ozone layer was a good illustration of that.

OOC:
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was opposed to inoffensive environmental legislation. Do tell me, what else do I apparently oppose?

[Mazemba]

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was opposed to inoffensive environmental legislation. Do tell me, what else do I apparently oppose?

I don't know what you oppose. My point was that the debate thread for the ozone layer proposal heavily featured a fairly hair-splitting RP debate about whether the resolutions of the old UN should be considered to still be in force with an added dash of "my nation is in a hermetically sealed spaceship" and "my species eats CFCs and finds ozone poisonous." Yet none of these issues appeared to have any bearing on the actual vote.

This is irrelevant to the draft at hand, however, and I'm not going to get into an argument with you.

[United Massachusetts]

"Is my proposed parental leave law sufficient to justify the repeal of 302 GA?"

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Is my proposed parental leave law sufficient to justify the repeal of 302 GA?"

"No. We are not entirely sure it would be illegal for contradiction, but we sincerely hope that it is. Laws like it are a major reason we are happy having the admittedly inelegant GA302 in force."

[United Massachusetts]

"Is my proposed parental leave law sufficient to justify the repeal of 302 GA?"

"No. We are not entirely sure it would be illegal for contradiction, but we sincerely hope that it is. Laws like it are a major reason we are happy having the admittedly inelegant GA302 in force."

What would it be in contradiction of?