| That might be relevant if the things enumerated in the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights were actually rights. Or universal. Or at least not riddled with internal contradictions and subjective qualifiers... Article 22 > in accordance with the organization and resources of each State So basically each State decides how serious it is about this. Apparently the organization of this State permits shutdowns and furloughs, which is enough to satisfy Article 22. > of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality Subjective to the point of meaninglessness, but there is plentiful evidence to support the notion that one's dignity and personal development can survive in the absence of a government job. Or any job, for that matter. Article 23 > Everyone has the right to work No one is being told they aren't allowed to work. The right to work does not guarantee gainful employment in your preferred field or with any specific employer. > to free choice of employment Neither is anyone being told they must perform any particular job; everyone is free to choose from among the positions available in the open job market. At this time that simply doesn't happen to include any government jobs, at least not if you want to get paid. There are plenty of private positions available, though. > to just and favourable conditions of work Subjective. Unless you're being coerced, your choice to remain is sufficient evidence for me that you consider the conditions "just and favorable" compared to your next-best alternative, which is all that anyone can reasonably expect. > and to protection against unemployment. Here's the first part that might actually be considered a statement of entitlement to income and/or having others pay your expenses. It would be unreasonable to expect this protection to last forever, though. It comes with the expectation that one is actively seeking new employment. "Protection against unemployment" is not UBI. > (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Non-discrimination does not guarantee income, a job, or paid expenses, so long as these are doled out (or not) equitably, so this part not applicable. > (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration There's that subjective "just and favorable" language again. No one reasonable is going to guarantee a livable income for yourself and your family merely on the basis of effort without regard for whether the work is actually productive. If you and your employer come to a voluntary agreement on the terms of your employment, that proves the resulting terms "just and favorable" enough to suit you—and no one else's opinion matters. > and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. The conditions to make this "necessary" are not defined, so we can just say it's never necessary and ignore this clause altogether. There is always another option. |