11-23-2006, 09:04 PM
MikitivityNov 23 2006, 02:32 AMI had a hard time deciding as well, and tentatively have voted in favour. Why? I wasn't clear on how it was a blocker, but it does seem to be making a positive statement that wages should be reasonable.[/quote]
I've never been of the opinion that mild proposals "don't do anything". In this case, I thought it would be best to "push" nations in the direction of implementing laws to guarantee fair wages, rather than using the Big Hammer approach.
As for the "blocking" aspect, yes Article VIII will prevent future attempts at minimum wage laws (which I oppose anyway) or living wage laws (which I support, but how would you mandate one for the NSUN?). My fear was that someone would write such a proposal, a well-meaning, but seriously flawed minimum wage proposal for instance, give it a catchy title, and then figure out how to TG it to quorum. I wasn't happy about including Article VIII, but considered it necessary.
The way I see the resolution being implemented is like this:
In nations where wages already are at an acceptable level, the commission will issue a report that basically says "well done, keep up the good work", and nothing will change really.
In "reasonable" nations where wages are low (which I see as the largest group affected by the Resolution), the commission will make recommendations and then the national government and the commission will work together to raise wages in that nation.
In "unreasonable" nations where wages are low, the commission will make recommendations and the national government will tell them to get lost. Or they may accept some of the recommendations, as they see fit. Which is better than nothing. These are the type of nations that would be prone to "loopholing" their way around this sort of resolution, or of leaving the UN outright anyway.
Of course from a gameplay perspective this Resolution will affect all of us equally. That doesn't matter much to me anymore. The game is broken and the stats changes and all of that are sort of irrelevant. I'm more concerned with how resolutions would work from an RP perspective.
I've never been of the opinion that mild proposals "don't do anything". In this case, I thought it would be best to "push" nations in the direction of implementing laws to guarantee fair wages, rather than using the Big Hammer approach.
As for the "blocking" aspect, yes Article VIII will prevent future attempts at minimum wage laws (which I oppose anyway) or living wage laws (which I support, but how would you mandate one for the NSUN?). My fear was that someone would write such a proposal, a well-meaning, but seriously flawed minimum wage proposal for instance, give it a catchy title, and then figure out how to TG it to quorum. I wasn't happy about including Article VIII, but considered it necessary.
The way I see the resolution being implemented is like this:
In nations where wages already are at an acceptable level, the commission will issue a report that basically says "well done, keep up the good work", and nothing will change really.
In "reasonable" nations where wages are low (which I see as the largest group affected by the Resolution), the commission will make recommendations and then the national government and the commission will work together to raise wages in that nation.
In "unreasonable" nations where wages are low, the commission will make recommendations and the national government will tell them to get lost. Or they may accept some of the recommendations, as they see fit. Which is better than nothing. These are the type of nations that would be prone to "loopholing" their way around this sort of resolution, or of leaving the UN outright anyway.
Of course from a gameplay perspective this Resolution will affect all of us equally. That doesn't matter much to me anymore. The game is broken and the stats changes and all of that are sort of irrelevant. I'm more concerned with how resolutions would work from an RP perspective.