NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday I proposed that workers be accorded basic rights to a union, a right currently not internationally granted. I would ask that all UN delegates approve said resolution, "The Right to Organize." I am pleasantly surprised by the modest show of support so far but still feel the need to plug it.

The Right to Organize

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Athamasha

Description: WHEREAS the labourers are the basis of the world's economy and sometimes mistreated,

THEREFORE all workers in all industries in all member nations shall have the following inalienable rights:
1. To organize into labour unions of their own making,
2. To utilise those labour unions in protest against low wages or poor working conditions,
3. To collectively bargain against the owners of the companies through the aforementioned unions,
4. To maintain those unions to the best of their abilities,
5. To not be discriminated against or fired due to past or present union activity.

Approvals: 13

Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Oct 29 2003

Yesterday I proposed that workers be accorded basic rights to a union, a right currently not internationally granted. I would ask that all UN delegates approve said resolution, "The Right to Organize." I am pleasantly surprised by the modest show of support so far but still feel the need to plug it.

I don't think this is a social justice issue. It should be a human rights issue. This protects the right to peaceful assembly... which I'm assuming extends beyond workers.

HOWEVER, teh final point violates property rights. Points 1 through 4 are excellent and protect liberty, whilst point 5 destroys. If you changed Point 5 to apply only to workplaces recieving public funding, then I will support it.

Oh wait, I left the UN.

that point is a rather crucial issue in the formation of unions though. If the workers are afraid of being blacklisted for joining a union there will be a bit of a problem

that point is a rather crucial issue in the formation of unions though. If the workers are afraid of being blacklisted for joining a union there will be a bit of a problem

But a person who owns a business has the right to fire whoever the hell he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants AS LONG AS THERE IS NO CONTRACT. However, if the worker signed a contract for a period fo time, the employer is prohibited from firing him.

Approved.

But a person who owns a business has the right to fire whoever the hell he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants AS LONG AS THERE IS NO CONTRACT. However, if the worker signed a contract for a period fo time, the employer is prohibited from firing him.

I would suggest that firing people solely due to race, religion and other group traits should be regulated; most liberal democracies believe in some concept of group rights, and the right of people to identify with these groups without fear of destitution.

This brings me to a question I would like to ask TGM; do you have any support for group rights?

But a person who owns a business has the right to fire whoever the hell he wants whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants AS LONG AS THERE IS NO CONTRACT. However, if the worker signed a contract for a period fo time, the employer is prohibited from firing him.

I would suggest that firing people solely due to race, religion and other group traits should be regulated; most liberal democracies believe in some concept of group rights, and the right of people to identify with these groups without fear of destitution.

This brings me to a question I would like to ask TGM; do you have any support for group rights?

If by group you mean race, ethnicity, etc., then no.

I support legal rights (i.e. the right to make contracts, the right to sue and be sued, etc.) for free associations of individuals, such as corporations, labor unions, school football team, etc. Race and ethnicity are NOT free associations. I'm Asian, and I can't change that even if I wanted to. "The White Race" or "The Black Race" should NOT be acknowledged by the law.

It's your property; it should be your right who to hire and who to fire.

Now if you recieve public funding, then that's a different story, but there is NO reason why the law should grant extra rights or responsibilities to people because of their race.

This is why affirmative action, Jim Crow Laws, the Nuremberg laws, etc., are fundamentally evil policies.

I don't think this is a social justice issue.

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

I think it falls squarely in that category, don't you?

I don't think this is a social justice issue.

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

I think it falls squarely in that category, don't you?

It might increase income inequality. Some of the union bosses might get filthy rich. This is about the freedom of assembly and association... it should be in human rights.

Unless of course you only want this to apply to the working class, in which case I have to dismiss this proposal as hypocritical sleaziness.

Well, actually I see it more as about basic welfare (i.e., humane working conditions) and income equality (i.e., a fair wage) than about freedom of assembly and association, although that's a factor too. Certainly it could apply to all types of workers, but I originally wrote it to apply to the working class.

If you want to interpret it as a freedom of assembly and association bill, go ahead, that's a perfectly good application of this bill I hadn't thought of when I wrote it. Come to think of it, if this fails I'll introduce one with more of an emphasis on office worker's rights.

It guarentees the workers have the RIGHT to protest for these things.

It doesn't guarentee that the workers will actually get them.

It guarentees the workers have the RIGHT to protest for these things.

It doesn't guarentee that the workers will actually get them.

Well, yes. That's true. But what right-thinking businessman would be willing to face a full-out worker revolt? (Well, one who has hired the Pinkertons, obviously. But that's beside the point.)

It guarentees the workers have the RIGHT to protest for these things.

It doesn't guarentee that the workers will actually get them.

Well, yes. That's true. But what right-thinking businessman would be willing to face a full-out worker revolt? (Well, one who has hired the Pinkertons, obviously. But that's beside the point.)

The workers getting their demands met is a side-effect of them having the right to demand it, and not vice versa.

Therefore this bill's primary purpose is guarenteeing the right to peaceful assembly... which makes it a human rights bill.

The workers getting their demands met is a side-effect of them having the right to demand it, and not vice versa.

Therefore this bill's primary purpose is guarenteeing the right to peaceful assembly... which makes it a human rights bill.

Point conceded.

That doesn't mean it's still not a good idea... It fits fine in the "Social Justice" category but is slightly better in the "Human Rights" category. So go ahead and support it, delegates, if you agree.

BUMP

We support this proposal whole-heartedly, regardless of which category it's in. We feel the categories are somewhat pointless anyhow, as we cannot search for proposals or resolutions by category. We agree with TGM that the resolution would be better without #5.

On the other hand, we disagree with TGM on the right of a business to fire someone. There are cases when a company should be able to fire an individual, even if a contract exists. On the other hand, we do not believe an employee has the right to fire an individual as he wishes. If I sneezed in a way that irritated my boss, and he chose to fire me, my ability to find future jobs would be affected, regardless of my actual job skills, etc.

Good luck with this one.

And what's with the bumping?

It's just to keep it up as it only has a few more days left before it expires.

I would support this but I'm out of the UN since I actually perfer not having an imploded economy... (THREE environmental resolutiosn... these people are out of their minds).

BUMP only a few hours left...