NationStates Jolt Archive

Awhile ago we realized that the UN has yet to enact any resolutions dealing with the rights of working people. This is an issue of grave importance worldwide. Therefore we have recently submitted a proposal entitled "The Rights of Labor Unions" that we hope you will approve. The text of the proposal was drafted by a collaborative effort of people from several nations working at the (tentatively named) Upton Sinclair Institute.

The Rights of Labor Unions

Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions, and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution. Laws that contradict these guarantees shall not be created or enforced.

this proposal can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/) as of now.

The AFoFS UN Council

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
Why? A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make. Why should it make an exception for this (hint: it shouldn't)?

[quote]2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions,
Why? If they want to run a company, let them--but we're not going to ensure that they're able to do it, just like we wouldn't do for anyone else.
and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
Why? Government has no place getting involved in a private dispute between employers and its employees.
3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
You mean just like any other voluntary association of individuals? Any moral nation does this already.
4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
As long as they don't hurt or defraud the person or property of anyone, this is already the case in any moral nation.
5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
Why? It's the employer's property--any moral nation realizes that the employer has every right to decide who he will or will not allow on his property and base that decision on whatever criteria he chooses.
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
So make up your mind--#6 or #7?

"Free Soviets" is an oxymoron.

Why? A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make. Why should it make an exception for this (hint: it shouldn't)?


Actually, I bet you do officially preference some groups over another; the most obvious example being language. Clearly those whose native tongue is the same as that of government have an advantage based on their group membership. Another example is weekends; religious groups whose sabbath days are on Saturday or Sunday and advantaged over those whose are otherwise. Another example is holidays. There are many more. It's ridiculous to assert an entirely neutral government.

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
Why? A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make. Why should it make an exception for this (hint: it shouldn't)?

because to not recognize labor unions as legal entities while recognizing businesses is to disallow freedom of association for workers. this article essentially demands that a government not have laws against the formation of unions or against collective representation of workers.

3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
You mean just like any other voluntary association of individuals? Any moral nation does this already.

yes. and while nations you call moral may already do this, we should expand it to the world.

6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
So make up your mind--#6 or #7?

they are complimentary. the unions are not above the law - they cannot commit murder. but the law must conform with this resolution - nations cannot use the status of unions being held by the law to take away their rights.

"Free Soviets" is an oxymoron.

this is not the place to discuss the fact that the worker's councils in my nation are free from domination by a political party. if you wish to discuss it we can do so elsewhere though.

5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
Why? It's the employer's property--any moral nation realizes that the employer has every right to decide who he will or will not allow on his property and base that decision on whatever criteria he chooses.

here we fundamentally disagree. there is no particular reason why a "moral" nation will think that employers should have supreme rights to determine that they won't deal with black people or jews or elves or anything else. this is no different.

you fail to see the power relationship that is setup by the system you advocate. you say you are playing fair, but you stack the deck and deal almost all the cards to one party. then you would prevent the other side from being able to effectively play the game with the few cards they do have by granting extra power to the first party. and you call this "moral".

(by the way, those are some strong words from a capitalizt nation where private enterprise is illegal and political freedoms are below average)

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
Why? A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make. Why should it make an exception for this (hint: it shouldn't)?


Stakanovia doesn't see anything in this proposal that specifically refers to what the Ithuanian government does and does not recognise. This is a proposal aiming to set global standards and Ithuania is certainly in no position to claim any right as a benchmark state. So, Ithuania's question is pointless in an international context. If its government want's to argue "Sovereign Right's" as its objection, go ahead, but drop the laughable contention that this somehow wins the argument: it hasn't before.


2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions.
Why? If they want to run a company, let them--but we're not going to ensure that they're able to do it, just like we wouldn't do for anyone else.

What are you talking about Ithuania? Who wants to run a company? Who wants you to ensure they do? Who is anyone else?

This point is merely to ensure that organisations representing workers have a right to engage in action that would further their claims to a fair wage and safe working conditions (as a starting point!).


and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
Why? Government has no place getting involved in a private dispute between employers and its employees.

Interesting. I presume your government has no employees? Does the Ithunaian government blithely assume that all industrial disputes that may occur are of a purely private nature. The government will not intervene over a downturn of provision of services to its population for extended periods because the two sides involved in disputes refuse to reach a compromise? I suppose Ithuania's solution (say, in the case of a firefighters strike) would be to send the armed forces in. You can't even see a compromise when it is handed to you, can you Ithuania? This point merely gives the government the means to resolve an industrial matter to the satisfaction of both parties on behalf of its citizens (whom it purports to represent - and presumably includes the disputants, their capital profits and living and working standards)


3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
You mean just like any other voluntary association of individuals? Any moral nation does this already.

Couldn't think of anything worthwhile to say here Ithuania? Except for smug dismissal.


4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
As long as they don't hurt or defraud the person or property of anyone, this is already the case in any moral nation.

I'm sure organisations can trust you on this one.


5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
Why? It's the employer's property--any moral nation realizes that the employer has every right to decide who he will or will not allow on his property and base that decision on whatever criteria he chooses.

How did you read property and the nefarious rights surrounding its use and access too such in this point? Obsession. This is about an employment relationship not about property rights. Not all employees are situated on the 'property' of their employer. Further, one would assume that employees have the right to work for any company they choose and are adequately trained and skilled to do so. The arbitrary exclusion of people from employment fly's in the face in the face of you so-called a\moral stance.


6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
So make up your mind--#6 or #7?

Read it again. They're not mutually exclusive.

Lastly, to what or whom are these moral nations to which you refer. On what are their morals based? Try something more substantial in future apart from a load of querulous cant.

Are there any more points of debate or arguments to be made? If so, please feel free. And if not, we ask that you please approve - or ask your regional delegate to approve - this proposal so that we may bring this important issue to the entire UN.

The AFoFS UN Council

This government agress with this proposal.

The Ithuanian envoy must remember the following:
The workers of a business are people too.

The objections stated within Ituania's rebuttals do not seem to recognize this factor and thus brings forth the true credibility of Ithunia as a moral government. Though the workers should not be given such power that corporations and businesses cannot make money, corporations should not be given so much power that they are allowed to stomp all over the human rights of each individual worker.

However, I do see his point in some cases. Clause 5 is semi-redundant. The UN already has created a resolution ensuring humans rights against descrimination. If the envoy of Free Soviets feels that it needs to be rehashed though, this government does not oppose.

Rad Kom
UN ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

First off, let me state that this proposal should be Human Rights, NOT Social Justice. This resolution [theoretically] protects the freedom of association. It does NOT guarentee that workers will get anything, just that workers will have the right to demand things. Thus, it does NOT give workers any physical goods, just the freedom to unionize.


1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.

A union is a free association of individuals. It should have the exact same legal rights as a think tank, a business, a university, any other free association of individuals, etc.


2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions, and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.

Define "appropriate strikes". And how can you ensure a moderator is unbiased? Why not let the WORKERS and COMPANY work it out? Otherwise, the government will be able to exert a tyrannical force on workers as well as companies.


3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.

Once again, unions are free associations of individuals. They have the right to merge just like any other free association of individuals.


4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.

Insert the word "nonviolent / nonfradulent" and I'll be okay. Otherwise, you could say that the Union could conduct mafia-style hits which is part of "organizing activities" and they would be free from state interference.

And as I said earlier, Unions should have the same rights as any other free association of individuals. No more and no less.


5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.

The same thing that gives unions the right to organize freely gives business the fire whoever it wants, save if there is a stated contract.


6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.

I believe this contradicts #4 and #7...


7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

I believe this contradicts #6...

First off, let me state that this proposal should be Human Rights, NOT Social Justice. This resolution [theoretically] protects the freedom of association. It does NOT guarentee that workers will get anything, just that workers will have the right to demand things. Thus, it does NOT give workers any physical goods, just the freedom to unionize.

This very issue was a point of debate at the Upton Sinclair Institute. The consensus that emerged came down on the side of social justice. This is because this proposal, while it bases itself on human rights, aims at social justice. And in every nation where a system even remotely like the proposed has been put into place, social justice has been increased. This is the goal and this is the effect. Ideally we would have put down both, but the system in place made us choose and we chose the more important effect.

... any moral nation realizes that the employer has every right to decide who he will or will not allow on his property and base that decision on whatever criteria he chooses ...

Ithuania strikes again. Apparently he's not afflicted in the slightest by any doubts as to his own fallibility, and so would make an excellent candidate for becoming the next pope. Why is it immoral for government to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of race, for example???

It would be good to include legislation that would govern relations between unions competing for endorsements.
Some bloody battles have been fought over labor organization turf.
Otherwise we think this proposal would lead to global prosperity and economic improvement.

We will be for this proposal as long as the rights of the union did not conflict with existing Jeff Land laws.

It would be good to include legislation that would govern relations between unions competing for endorsements.
Some bloody battles have been fought over labor organization turf.
Otherwise we think this proposal would lead to global prosperity and economic improvement.

We agree that some system of rules (either formal or informal) must be made, but we felt that that was an issue best left to each nation - at least at this time. some nations' political and economic structures would be best suited to some form of proportional representation when it comes to collective bargaining, some places will favor a single union per workplace, and some will push for "one big union". We come down on the one big union side, but others could legitimately disagree with this position.

The Confederacy of Stone River rejects this proposal. Unions serve no purpose than to derail economies for their own selfish needs. How can they justify sending a whole nation's economic security into jeopardy, just so they can get an extra dollar an hour? In order for a nation to succeed, they must put aside all their petty differences, and work together for the greater good of its people. Stone River has prided itself on having one of the strongest economies in the world, and we have acheived it partially by banning the formation of unions. We will not support any legislation that gives any justification to these selfish economic rogues.

Workers make up the vast majority of the population of any society that has a class division between workers and owners. Therefore workers organizing to advance their interests is the greater good. And unions do not just fight for higher wages, they fight for safer working conditions and for human dignity.

A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make...

If that is so, Ithuania, then please tell us why the write-up for your country contains the following statement: "Private enterprise [in Ithuania] is illegal, but for those in the know there is a slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining..."

Isn't private enterprise about the "voluntary mutual associations individuals make"???

I can't agree: it's far too heavy and legalistic. lighten up!

We of Sporkopolis cannot support unions. In too many instances, unions have outlived their uselfullness and have become heavily political bodies of great power and corruption.

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
Why? A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make. Why should it make an exception for this (hint: it shouldn't)?


Stakanovia doesn't see anything in this proposal that specifically refers to what the Ithuanian government does and does not recognise. This is a proposal aiming to set global standards and Ithuania is certainly in no position to claim any right as a benchmark state. So, Ithuania's question is pointless in an international context. If its government want's to argue "Sovereign Right's" as its objection, go ahead, but drop the laughable contention that this somehow wins the argument: it hasn't before.
My point is that the Ithuanian government (or any moral government) doesn't recognize ANY type of voluntary organization officially, so why should special considerations be made for labor unions?


2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions.
Why? If they want to run a company, let them--but we're not going to ensure that they're able to do it, just like we wouldn't do for anyone else.

What are you talking about Ithuania? Who wants to run a company? Who wants you to ensure they do? Who is anyone else?
He said, "ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions"--in other words, to run a business.


and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
Why? Government has no place getting involved in a private dispute between employers and its employees.

Interesting. I presume your government has no employees? Does the Ithunaian government blithely assume that all industrial disputes that may occur are of a purely private nature. The government will not intervene over a downturn of provision of services to its population for extended periods because the two sides involved in disputes refuse to reach a compromise?
Basically, yes.
I suppose Ithuania's solution (say, in the case of a firefighters strike) would be to send the armed forces in.
Why? It's a private matter between the firefighters and the fire department. You can't even see a compromise when it is handed to you, can you Ithuania?
This point merely gives the government the means to resolve an industrial matter to the satisfaction of both parties on behalf of its citizens
But again, it's a private dispute and government doesn't need to get involved.


3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
You mean just like any other voluntary association of individuals? Any moral nation does this already.

Couldn't think of anything worthwhile to say here Ithuania? Except for smug dismissal.
Learn to read.


4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
As long as they don't hurt or defraud the person or property of anyone, this is already the case in any moral nation.

I'm sure organisations can trust you on this one.
Huh?


5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
Why? It's the employer's property--any moral nation realizes that the employer has every right to decide who he will or will not allow on his property and base that decision on whatever criteria he chooses.

How did you read property and the nefarious rights surrounding its use and access too such in this point?
Because I can read.
This is about an employment relationship not about property rights. Not all employees are situated on the 'property' of their employer.
OK, well, guess whose money they're receiving as pay--that's right, the EMPLOYER'S!
Further, one would assume that employees have the right to work for any company they choose and are adequately trained and skilled to do so.
But they don't. It is entirely the decision of the employer, since it is his property involved.
The arbitrary exclusion of people from employment fly's in the face in the face of you so-called a\moral stance.
Why? Because I realize that individuals are free to do as they wish with what is theirs, including denying access to it to others?


Lastly, to what or whom are these moral nations to which you refer. On what are their morals based?
Individual rights and freedom and non-slavery--something you apparently have a problem with.

This government agress with this proposal.


The workers of a business are people too.
Exactly--which means they have the same rights as any other person. And everyone else has the same rights as them--including the right to refuse to deal with them FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY CHOOSE.

Why is it immoral for government to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of race, for example???

Because an individual has the right to refuse to deal with any other individual for WHATEVER REASON HE CHOOSES!

A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make...

If that is so, Ithuania, then please tell us why the write-up for your country contains the following statement: "Private enterprise [in Ithuania] is illegal, but for those in the know there is a slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining..."
OK, this is just idiotic.

That little blurb you're referring to is absolutely meaningless.

We of Sporkopolis cannot support unions. In too many instances, unions have outlived their uselfullness and have become heavily political bodies of great power and corruption.

As if the corporations aren't hot beds of corruption with great power. If the corruption goes into the realm of illegality, this proposal does not protect that. What it does do is give average working people a chance to level the playing field between themselves and the bosses. It boost the status of one side to fix a power inequality so that both sides may bargain as relative equals.

Without unions, our grandparents and great grandparents would never have gotten themselves out of the sweatshops of the industrial revolution. Every gain that has been made for working people has been struggled for and unions are the main instrument of that struggle. They are have been able to protect the interests of the regular people and create better work environments for everyone. We wish to see these benefits spread to all the people of the world.

A moral nation such as The Republic of Ithuania doesn't officially recognize any other groups, as it is not government's place to concern itself with the voluntary mutual associations individuals make...

If that is so, Ithuania, then please tell us why the write-up for your country contains the following statement: "Private enterprise [in Ithuania] is illegal, but for those in the know there is a slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining..."
OK, this is just idiotic.

That little blurb you're referring to is absolutely meaningless.

Well, then maybe our "GDP" figures you quoted some time ago were equally meaningless.

If that is so, Ithuania, then please tell us why the write-up for your country contains the following statement: "Private enterprise [in Ithuania] is illegal, but for those in the know there is a slick and highly efficient black market in Uranium Mining..."
OK, this is just idiotic.

That little blurb you're referring to is absolutely meaningless.

(only if you aren't playing this game. but if you aren't playing this game, then what exactly are you doing?)

We of Sporkopolis cannot support unions. In too many instances, unions have outlived their uselfullness and have become heavily political bodies of great power and corruption.

As if the corporations aren't hot beds of corruption with great power. If the corruption goes into the realm of illegality, this proposal does not protect that. What it does do is give average working people a chance to level the playing field between themselves and the bosses. It boost the status of one side to fix a power inequality so that both sides may bargain as relative equals.

Without unions, our grandparents and great grandparents would never have gotten themselves out of the sweatshops of the industrial revolution. Every gain that has been made for working people has been struggled for and unions are the main instrument of that struggle. They are have been able to protect the interests of the regular people and create better work environments for everyone. We wish to see these benefits spread to all the people of the world.

Exactly... the unions once served a purpose. Most no longer do that. Most unions today jack up salaries, benefits and keep slackers on the job. Unions are a scourge that have been long due for upheaval.

Quite frankly, this is an issue on which we are of two minds. Our constitution contains the following provision: "The right of workers to organise, bargain collectively and strike shall not be infringed. Parliament shall enforce this right by means of appropriate legislation." So the rights of labour are dear to our hearts. Our trade unions are an important part of our society, and we would like to see enlightened labour practices adopted worldwide.

However, we have serious reservations about turning the U.N. into a kind of "world legislature", with the power to enact laws in fields that have traditionally been left up to individual nations. We feel that, if that dike is opened, all sorts of proposals will come before the U.N. Some of them--such as the "Bill of No Rights" or the proposal to "ban homosexuality"--will directly contradict our constitution; and by the law of averages, one or two of them will probably be adopted. In that case, we would have to leave the U.N. in order to maintain our essential freedom and way of life.

Since we feel that the U.N. has potentially a great deal of value in resolving conflicts, we do not want to have to make that choice. Overall, we are inclined to think that maintaining the integrity of the U.N. requires a measure of tolerance for nations with vastly differing political and economic systems; and consequently a degree of self-restraint on the part of that body.

Exactly... the unions once served a purpose. Most no longer do that. Most unions today jack up salaries, benefits and keep slackers on the job. Unions are a scourge that have been long due for upheaval.

Better to "keep slackers on the job" then to fall back down to where we were without them. And beyond that, most of the workers of the world aren't so lucky as to have had their grandparents fight and win the battles for them.

Exactly... the unions once served a purpose. Most no longer do that. Most unions today jack up salaries, benefits and keep slackers on the job. Unions are a scourge that have been long due for upheaval.

Better to "keep slackers on the job" then to fall back down to where we were without them. And beyond that, most of the workers of the world aren't so lucky as to have had their grandparents fight and win the battles for them.

No kidding--if you're not subject to child labor laws, thank a union. If you only work 40 hours a week, thank a union. If you make anything close to a living wage, thank a union. You want to know what working conditions are like when there aren't any worker protections? Go to any third world country and check out the factories.

The arbitrary exclusion of people from employment fly's in the face in the face of you so-called a\moral stance.

Like a Closed Shop? In my current place of employ, people who don't want to be part of the Union are arbitrarily excluded from employment. Sauce for the goose. . .

Aubreyad

No kidding--if you're not subject to child labor laws, thank a union. If you only work 40 hours a week, thank a union. If you make anything close to a living wage, thank a union. You want to know what working conditions are like when there aren't any worker protections? Go to any third world country and check out the factories.

Or you can go to a retail store. I'm in one of the most heavily Unionized industries in the US today (railroad) and my benefits, the ones my Union fought so valiantly for, are inferior to those I had when I worked 25 hours a week in a video store at minimum wage. Right now my Union is trying to CUT my pay because I lack seniority and give the money to those with seniority, despite the fact that by ANY measure I am among the top 5 individuals in my department. Unions are welfare for the bottom 50% of workers, and a tax on the top 50%. The top half make less and get fewer benefits while the bottom half, the ones we carry due to theit laziness and/or incompetence, reap the rewards. Oh, not to mention the threats. when my Union rep tried to get us into an illegal sympathy strike and I said I didn't want to participate, she threatened to firebomb my car. Aren't Unions grand?

Aubreyad

Or you can go to a retail store. I'm in one of the most heavily Unionized industries in the US today (railroad) and my benefits, the ones my Union fought so valiantly for, are inferior to those I had when I worked 25 hours a week in a video store at minimum wage.

either the unions for the us railroads really suck, or you had the most amazing retail job i've ever heard of. retail offers no benefits at all usually. and nobody works full-time specifically so they don't have to give any.

It was Blockbuster. They didn't have to give them, but you could opt-in. It cost less than my curent benefits, and had the added benefit of providing prescription drugs. Up until a November 1st we only had mail-order coverage. So if you had an infection, you either paid for it yourself or waited 10-15 working days to get your antibiotic. And the added coverage didn't come from the Union, our contract has a year to go. Oh, the Union also raised dues a while back. Just informed us of their decision. It's like the Mafia, but without the cool nicknames. :)

I'm not saying all Unions are this bad. I don't want people to ge tthe wrong impression here. But they aren't all the saintly crusaders for justice that Unions are often portrayed as, either.

...It's like the Mafia, but without the cool nicknames. :)

I'm not saying all Unions are this bad. I don't want people to ge tthe wrong impression here. But they aren't all the saintly crusaders for justice that Unions are often portrayed as, either.

We could give you a couple of horror stories about what happens to people who work for corporations that DON'T allow unions.

It was Blockbuster. They didn't have to give them, but you could opt-in. It cost less than my curent benefits, and had the added benefit of providing prescription drugs. Up until a November 1st we only had mail-order coverage. So if you had an infection, you either paid for it yourself or waited 10-15 working days to get your antibiotic. And the added coverage didn't come from the Union, our contract has a year to go. Oh, the Union also raised dues a while back. Just informed us of their decision. It's like the Mafia, but without the cool nicknames. :)

I'm not saying all Unions are this bad. I don't want people to ge tthe wrong impression here. But they aren't all the saintly crusaders for justice that Unions are often portrayed as, either.

as far as ooc comments go, i actually agree. some unions - possibly especially american ones - have very little accountability. the real life solution i push for is to take power back. union bosses aren't workers, why should they be holding the executive power? the tangible power of unions rests with its rank and file members, so that is where decision making power should be too. it only makes sense. the people who can best look out for the interests of workers in a particular industry or at a particular workplace are the workers themselves. unions should be there to aid people not to boss them around and make decisions for them. but without any union protection at all, we'd all be screwed.

My position largely boils down to the fact that the horror stories from both sides laregly happen or don't depending on the basic human decency of the bosses, corporate and Union alike. As long as Unions are voluntary and democratic I have no problem. But forced Unionization and a total lack of elections, like my Union, that's a Bad Thing ic and ooc. Open shops & regularly scheduled free elections are a must. Add that, and even Aubreyad would support it. If we were in the UN. :)

Aubreyad

"Free Soviets" is an oxymoron.

Only because of the betrayals by lenin and trotsky is that so...

The presence of labor unions correlates statistically with economic prosperity. We believe this is because the average person in such an economy has more spending money and is more inclined to build and invest.
Unions can always be regulated to curb abuses.

My position largely boils down to the fact that the horror stories from both sides laregly happen or don't depending on the basic human decency of the bosses, corporate and Union alike. As long as Unions are voluntary and democratic I have no problem. But forced Unionization and a total lack of elections, like my Union, that's a Bad Thing ic and ooc. Open shops & regularly scheduled free elections are a must. Add that, and even Aubreyad would support it. If we were in the UN. :)

Aubreyad

I'd agree to that--sounds like your union is a shitty one, and I know that they exist. Any power, when unregulated, leads to abuse. But the overall effects of unions has been good over time, and since unions have been in free fall for the last 30 or so years in the US, workers find their rights and privileges slowly disappearing. Corporations are getting away with more and more--it's time for unions to regain their former strength and act as a buffer between the powerful and the powerless.

The presence of labor unions correlates statistically with economic prosperity. We believe this is because the average person in such an economy has more spending money and is more inclined to build and invest.
Unions can always be regulated to curb abuses.

Unions, like corporations, are neither inherently positive nor negative. They are free associations of individuals and should be treated like any other free association of individuals. Period.

Unions, like corporations, are neither inherently positive nor negative. They are free associations of individuals and should be treated like any other free association of individuals. Period.

Aside from the fact that a society is better off with a lot of "free associations of individuals", we feel that unions have an inherently positive role to play in the economic process, since they provide a necessary check and balance on the power of corporations (and government). Society should conduce to the happiness of the vast majority of its members, and unions contribute to that end.

Unions, like corporations, are neither inherently positive nor negative. They are free associations of individuals and should be treated like any other free association of individuals. Period.

I disagree. Unions do what they are designed to do as do corporations. Their purposes and effects can be evaluated as positive and negative. I assume we will disagree about the valuation of the effects mainly.

Corporations, like pretty much any other capitalist enterprise, are meant to extract as much wealth as possible in whatever way possible. To do this they need to offer some service or product. But to offer a service or product they need to have laborers and workplaces. These will be the greatest expenses and therefore will be the most tempting place for the owners to try to cut costs in order to increase profits. But cutting costs in laborers and workplaces means lowering wages and benefits, mass lay-offs, cutting corners on workplace safety, etc. Unions are the major force in protecting the interests of the workers. Therefore unions serve as a check against the corporations and their "profits above all else" design - making sure that fewer people completely run over by the power differences inherent in the system.

Workers will always outnumber bosses. But without unions, bosses have an immensely more powerful position than any single worker. Add to this the fact that in many countries all over the world unions are specifically disallowed and you can see why we need to make special recognition of their particular rights, in the interests of social justice and human rights in general.

Unions, like corporations, are neither inherently positive nor negative. They are free associations of individuals and should be treated like any other free association of individuals. Period.

I disagree. Unions do what they are designed to do as do corporations. Their purposes and effects can be evaluated as positive and negative. I assume we will disagree about the valuation of the effects mainly.

Corporations, like pretty much any other capitalist enterprise, are meant to extract as much wealth as possible in whatever way possible. To do this they need to offer some service or product. But to offer a service or product they need to have laborers and workplaces. These will be the greatest expenses and therefore will be the most tempting place for the owners to try to cut costs in order to increase profits. But cutting costs in laborers and workplaces means lowering wages and benefits, mass lay-offs, cutting corners on workplace safety, etc. Unions are the major force in protecting the interests of the workers. Therefore unions serve as a check against the corporations and their "profits above all else" design - making sure that fewer people completely run over by the power differences inherent in the system.

Workers will always outnumber bosses. But without unions, bosses have an immensely more powerful position than any single worker. Add to this the fact that in many countries all over the world unions are specifically disallowed and you can see why we need to make special recognition of their particular rights, in the interests of social justice and human rights in general.

They are both free associations of individuals. Back in the 40s and 50s, the US had a huge problem with corrupt union bosses who became more oppressive towards their workers than any corporate leaders. A lot of them used mafia-style hits and terror tactics to keep their workers in line.

Corporations and unions have the exact same purpose -- to further the interests for which its members incorporated. This means enriching shareholders for a corporations, and enriching members for a union.

Besides, if you pass a resolution protecting the freedom of association in general with a mention to unions, then surely unions WILL be allowed without having to violate anyone else's rights.

"Free Soviets" is an oxymoron.

Only because of the betrayals by lenin and trotsky is that so...

indeed. also, the fact that people don't tend to know what a soviet is other than in a coldwar propaganda context.

"Free Soviets" is an oxymoron.

Only because of the betrayals by lenin and trotsky is that so...

indeed. also, the fact that people don't tend to know what a soviet is other than in a coldwar propaganda context.

A Soviet is just a word for a governing body, isn't it?

5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
Why? It's the employer's property--any moral nation realizes that the employer has every right to decide who he will or will not allow on his property and base that decision on whatever criteria he chooses.

here we fundamentally disagree. there is no particular reason why a "moral" nation will think that employers should have supreme rights to determine that they won't deal with black people or jews or elves or anything else. this is no different.

you fail to see the power relationship that is setup by the system you advocate. you say you are playing fair, but you stack the deck and deal almost all the cards to one party. then you would prevent the other side from being able to effectively play the game with the few cards they do have by granting extra power to the first party. and you call this "moral".

(by the way, those are some strong words from a capitalizt nation where private enterprise is illegal and political freedoms are below average)

Well, realize that since free speech gives you the right to make racist remarks, free association gives you the right to make racist associations.

It's the price you pay for freedom, but I'd all-in-all, it's a good deal.

Besides, if you pass a resolution protecting the freedom of association in general with a mention to unions, then surely unions WILL be allowed without having to violate anyone else's rights.

Except that business have certain rights and duties that differ from those of a political party or a group of friends playing fooseball. Different types of associations are viewed - and treated - differently. They have to play by certain rules that may differ from those for other types of associations. These rules are decided upon in various ways and are sometimes made in favor of various types of organization.

This is no different, except that its main effect is to counterbalance some of the skewed power structures and favoritism seen in many countries. It is specifically aimed at the rights and rules regarding one very specific kind of association. As I said earlier, it is founded upon the principle of free association, but it has a goal in mind that is above mere affirmation of that right.

call me crazy i don''t have a problem with this proposal i'd vote for it if it came out. :D

Besides, if you pass a resolution protecting the freedom of association in general with a mention to unions, then surely unions WILL be allowed without having to violate anyone else's rights.

Except that business have certain rights and duties that differ from those of a political party or a group of friends playing fooseball. Different types of associations are viewed - and treated - differently. They have to play by certain rules that may differ from those for other types of associations. These rules are decided upon in various ways and are sometimes made in favor of various types of organization.

They shouldn't be. Businesses should have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other free association of individuals, such as a political party. HOWEVER, the difference between a business or a union and a group of friends playing fooseball, is that a business, union, or political party, has a legal contract between its members that serves as a charter. This is what gives it legal rights.

This is no different, except that its main effect is to counterbalance some of the skewed power structures and favoritism seen in many countries. It is specifically aimed at the rights and rules regarding one very specific kind of association. As I said earlier, it is founded upon the principle of free association, but it has a goal in mind that is above mere affirmation of that right.

But the way a lot of these things are phrased, you are giving rights to one type of association that couldn't logically be given to others. This is essentially a hypocritical policy.

Now if you took out points 2, 4, 5, and 6, I'd vote for it :lol:

A Soviet is just a word for a governing body, isn't it?

roughly. it refers specifically to the various legislative/executive bodies. essentially workers' councils and the like. for example there was the moscow soviet and the petrograd soviet, etc. in theory, the soviet union was the "dictatorship" of the soviets. in reality the dictatorship ruled over the soviets. free soviets were what was called for by the left-communists, the anarchists, and lots of other people during the russian revolution as the bolsheviks consolidated power. free as in not dominated and ordered around by a central power like the bolsheviks. in other words "all power to the soviets", if they are free soviets, is a call for local rule and direct self management.

A Soviet is just a word for a governing body, isn't it?

roughly. it refers specifically to the various legislative/executive bodies. essentially workers' councils and the like. for example there was the moscow soviet and the petrograd soviet, etc. in theory, the soviet union was the "dictatorship" of the soviets. in reality the dictatorship ruled over the soviets. free soviets were what was called for by the left-communists, the anarchists, and lots of other people during the russian revolution as the bolsheviks consolidated power. free as in not dominated and ordered around by a central power like the bolsheviks. in other words "all power to the soviets", if they are free soviets, is a call for local rule and direct self management.

The Russian Revolution is pretty interesting to study. I mean Russia got invaded by Estonians, Latvians, Lituhanians, Letts, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Japanese, British, Americans, French, Serbs, etc. And lots of internal fighting, including Ukraine basically seceding from the rest of the Soviet Union. It's really amazing that the Reds were able to defeat them all. But then again, it should be amazing that hte French Republic was able to defeat all of its enemies in 1792-99 and even expand its territory significantly.

Well, realize that since free speech gives you the right to make racist remarks, free association gives you the right to make racist associations.

Here we will again fundamentally differ, this time on the nature of businesses and corporations and such and their rights and responsibilities. They are not just free associations, they are the economic structures of a society. The economic structures of a society are a vitally important part of it and there is tremendous power to be held by controlling those structures. Essentially, we would argue that there is no such thing as the freedom to oppress people or the freedom to deny them access to the economic structures of society because of skin color or political affiliation, etc. Systematically denying people access to the economic structures is oppression - even if there is no law that does the denying and it is just a "coincidence" of the market.

Well, realize that since free speech gives you the right to make racist remarks, free association gives you the right to make racist associations.

Here we will again fundamentally differ, this time on the nature of businesses and corporations and such and their rights and responsibilities. They are not just free associations, they are the economic structures of a society. The economic structures of a society are a vitally important part of it and there is tremendous power to be held by controlling those structures. Essentially, we would argue that there is no such thing as the freedom to oppress people or the freedom to deny them access to the economic structures of society because of skin color or political affiliation, etc. Systematically denying people access to the economic structures is oppression - even if there is no law that does the denying and it is just a "coincidence" of the market.

I question though: how do you define when somebody is rejected because of race and when he is rejected due to incompetence? I also note that successful corporations follow bottom-line policies which means that they will hire the best possible person at the lowest cost regardless of race. Nowadays, racism in business is a self-defeating strategy.

So what do you expect to happen when moral individuals get tired of socialist aggression and oppression and refuse to go into business at all instead of having their rights violated by being forced to associate with individuals whether or not they want to?

No one has a "right" to participate in an economy...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

No one has a "right" to participate in an economy...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

Why can't you express your ideas without insulting other people? You're really not doing your cause any good. A little less arrogance, and a little more levity, now and then might help.

Why shouldn't I be arrogant? I'm right.

Why shouldn't I be arrogant? I'm right.

That makes two of us. So why do we disagree so much??? :roll:

Because obviously you incorrectly believe that you are right...

Well, I thought I was wrong once. But I was mistaken.

No one has a "right" to participate in an economy...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

No one has a "right" to privately own the means of production and distribution...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

No one has a "right" to deny people access to the economic structures of a society because of their ideas about collective bargaining...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

We can play this game until the end of time.

I still think there is something interesting *snicker* about being lectured on the virtues of 'absolute capitalism' and the evilness of all else from a country where private enterprise is illegal. A bit like being lectured on freedom by a fascist dictatorship.

Anyway, the UN Council of the AFoFS would like to take this opportunity to thank all the delegates who have approved the labor proposal so far and to ask any others to please do so. Additionally, there is a proposed amendment that is up for approval, and we encourage delegates to consider it as well.

No one has a "right" to participate in an economy...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

No one has a "right" to privately own the means of production and distribution...you're a fool if you think otherwise.
Yes, he does. He works for it, he takes the risk and responsibility, he damn well has every right to own it and do as he pleases.

No one has a "right" to deny people access to the economic structures of a society because of their ideas about collective bargaining...you're a fool if you think otherwise.
Depends on what you mean by deny. If you mean "refuse to deal with", then you're dead wrong--an individual has every right to choose with whom he will deal and base that decision on whatever criteria he wishes.


I still think there is something interesting *snicker* about being lectured on the virtues of 'absolute capitalism' and the evilness of all else from a country where private enterprise is illegal.
OK, now this shit is just getting old. This is probably the 15th time that I've had to point out that that little blurb means precisely jack shit.

No one has a "right" to participate in an economy...you're a fool if you think otherwise.

No one has a "right" to privately own the means of production and distribution...you're a fool if you think otherwise.
Yes, he does. He works for it, he takes the risk and responsibility, he damn well has every right to own it and do as he pleases.

No, he doesn't because the means of production and distribution rightfully belong to the community.

As I said, we can do this until the end of time.


I still think there is something interesting *snicker* about being lectured on the virtues of 'absolute capitalism' and the evilness of all else from a country where private enterprise is illegal.
OK, now this shit is just getting old. This is probably the 15th time that I've had to point out that that little blurb means precisely jack shit.

That little blurb means that in your country private enterprise is illegal. Or do you just make up stats about your country as you go?

Well then, my country is the richest in the world.

I have dealt with Mr Ithuana quite a bit, and every time he has relied on nasty, ad hominem arguments. I fail to see why people can't disagree politically without impugning each other's motives, intelligence, or ethics.

I am inclined to think that there is such a thing as absolute, objective reality. But I am also inclined to think that we human beings are fallible in our understanding of that reality.

"Free Soviets" is an oxymoron."Soviet" means council in Russian. How is 'Free Councils" an oxymoron?

A fine proposal! Aprove it now my fellow delegates, aprove it now!

The Great Nation of Putergeeks supports this proposal.

I have dealt with Mr Ithuana quite a bit, and every time he has relied on nasty, ad hominem arguments. I fail to see why people can't disagree politically without impugning each other's motives, intelligence, or ethics.

I am inclined to think that there is such a thing as absolute, objective reality. But I am also inclined to think that we human beings are fallible in our understanding of that reality.

Welcome to the club--I've debated with him on this subject till I'm blue in the face and he still refuses to see reason. Just give it up--anyone who reads the debates honestly knows that Ithuania doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I have dealt with Mr Ithuana quite a bit, and every time he has relied on nasty, ad hominem arguments. I fail to see why people can't disagree politically without impugning each other's motives, intelligence, or ethics.

I am inclined to think that there is such a thing as absolute, objective reality. But I am also inclined to think that we human beings are fallible in our understanding of that reality.

Welcome to the club--I've debated with him on this subject till I'm blue in the face and he still refuses to see reason. Just give it up--anyone who reads the debates honestly knows that Ithuania doesn't have a leg to stand on.

We're inclined to think that the other side does have a certain amount of truth on its side. People who put up the money, take the risk and devote their lives to developing an idea and starting a business are entitled to a certain measure of consideration from society. Up to a point, society should respect their right to make decisions affecting their business.

But that right is not absolute. Workers are part of society too--and so are the poor. Society itself cannot exist unless it takes some care to preserving the environment. Government exists as a necessary part of the balance, and so do labour unions. Business, government, and labour all have their limitations and their faults--but all are necessary.

I'm going to bump this back up to the top of the agenda. One day left, 20 more delegates needed. If you haven't done so yet, please approve it or ask your delegate to do so for you. Thanks for all the support, let's hope we get the rest of it needed.


The Rights of Labor Unions

Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions, and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution. Laws that contradict these guarantees shall not be created or enforced.

this proposal can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/).

The AFoFS UN Council

I'm going to bump this back up to the top of the agenda. One day left, 20 more delegates needed. If you haven't done so yet, please approve it or ask your delegate to do so for you.

Why? It's a fundamentally evil idea, as I've already proven.

I'm going to bump this back up to the top of the agenda. One day left, 20 more delegates needed. If you haven't done so yet, please approve it or ask your delegate to do so for you. Thanks for all the support, let's hope we get the rest of it needed.


The Rights of Labor Unions

Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions, and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution. Laws that contradict these guarantees shall not be created or enforced.

this proposal can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/).

The AFoFS UN Council

I will likewise not be supporting this bill. While I agree with half of it as promoting the freedom of association, the other half is special privilege (and remember that anything government does is usually zero-sum) which therefore interferes with the freedom of association of other entities.

I like it for the most part, but I do not like the parts that force my nation to get involved in strikes. I try to make my government as invisible as possible and forcinn me to throw myself into strikes goes against that. i do agree that every worker should have the right to Unions though.

I like it for the most part, but I do not like the parts that force my nation to get involved in strikes. I try to make my government as invisible as possible and forcinn me to throw myself into strikes goes against that. i do agree that every worker should have the right to Unions though.

Your government doesn't have to get entangled in strikes, at least not overtly. You merely cannot make necessary union activities illegal. Additionally, about the provision of appointing unbiased mediators, this doesn't even have to be done by the government. It could be done by some sort of a sanctioned mediation agency or something. Really, most of the entanglement called for in this proposal is that governments cease creating and upholding unnecessary and unfair barriers to labor unions forming and being able to effectively fight for workers' rights and dignity.
The AFoFS UN Council

btw,

We only need 3 more approvals.

Actually, no, you want to give them special privileges that interfere with the property and association rights of business owners.

I'm going to bump this back up to the top of the agenda. One day left, 20 more delegates needed. If you haven't done so yet, please approve it or ask your delegate to do so for you.

Why? It's a fundamentally evil idea, as I've already proven.

You've never proven a goddamn thing, other than that you can make assertions and then claim that they represent some absolute truth.

I'm going to bump this back up to the top of the agenda. One day left, 20 more delegates needed. If you haven't done so yet, please approve it or ask your delegate to do so for you.

Why? It's a fundamentally evil idea, as I've already proven.

No, having a working class that is starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases is evil.

The proposal does not compel governments to become embroiled in strikes, as Free Soviets, has already explained, ut surely it makes good business sense to do what you can to prevent strikes becoming intractible.

I would call on all forward thinking delegates to give the proposal their support.

Celdonian Minister of Industry.

The Republic of SilveryMinnow already follows the Libertarian platform on Labor Unions.We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the United Nations Labor Relations Act, and all imposed Right-to-Work Laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners, and management by keeping government out of this area.

Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers, and innocent bystanders.

As a moral nation we do this without the imposition of the U.N.

telegram that is apparently being sent out to delegates who have supported this proposal:
The Republic of Ithuania
Received: 2 hours ago

I respectfully request that you consider withdrawing your support of the proposal "Rights of Labor Unions" in the UN. This proposal has several problems of which you might not be aware, including:
1) Points #7 and #8 are exclusive of each other
2) The whole purpose of the proposal is to allow labor unions to ride roughshod over the rights of everyone, including the property and association rights of employers.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, and I look forward to working with you to end the threat posed by this scourge of freedom!

alright, ithuania, this ain't cool. first off, there is no point 8. second off, there is no contradiction. third, you have totally misrepresented everything that has been argued here and are relying on people not reading this thread and not knowing you and your debate style. not cool.

And Free Soviets is relying on delegates being unfamiliar with economics and with trade unionism.

Nations such as Ithuania, Rational Self-Interest, The Global Market, SilveryMinnow, and others, apparently feel that it is a fundamental principle of their societies to allow employers to refuse to deal with labour unions as collective bargaining agents. Some of them also seem to feel that employers should have the right to fire workers who engage in union activities.

As much as such beliefs contradict our own principles, embodied in our Constitution, we have reluctantly decided that the principle of national sovereignty applies here. We will defend Ithuania's right to govern itself--even though Ithuania would never defend ours.

We don't allow businesses to form monopolies or to set prices by collective agreement, why should we allow workers to do so? Monopolies harm the economy, reduce productivity, impair the efficient allocation of resources, interfere with growth and are bad for everyone in the long run. That includes labor monopolies.

We don't allow businesses to form monopolies or to set prices by collective agreement, why should we allow workers to do so? Monopolies harm the economy, reduce productivity, impair the efficient allocation of resources, interfere with growth and are bad for everyone in the long run. That includes labor monopolies.How does one stop corporate collusion? It is impossible esp. w/o an extensive government regelatory beuracracy. There is a real power imbalance between workers and corps which the labor union helps to mitigate.

and again btw,

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

A big thank you to everyone who has helped in creating, advertising, and generally supporting this proposal. Now let's get it through the UN body.
AFoFS UN Council

Disregarding Ithuania's arguments (which seem to be more aimed at insulting other nations than really opposing the proposal) the arguments put forward against this proposal seem to center on the idea that if unions are mandatory they will become political bodies, engaged more in enriching their leaders than supporting worker rights.

There is certainly historical precedent for this. Indeed, while unions frequently initially form to combat an injustice in their industry, once the problem that caused their formation has been dealt with many unions do become associations of freeloaders living off hard workers. Many of them become just as corrupt and powerhungry as the corporations they were originally created to fight, but while there are legal ways to prevent a corporation from abusing its power (such as lawsuits and government investigations), in many nations there is no way to stop a union from doing so. This is a real problem and must be addressed.

Unfortunately, this proposal does not address this problem, all it does is guarantee that workers can form unions. Once a union exists, there is nothing to stop it from becoming exactly the kind of political, Mafia-like body the opponents of this proposal envision. There needs to be some regulation to prevent unions from growing into large, dangerous powers. Some way must be made for unions to be opposed, otherwise they stomp all over the same honest workers they are supposed to be protecting. An example of this is unions where membership is required to work in the industry. If a worker refuses to join and pay what are usually exorbitant dues and fees, the unions can and do keep the worker out of the business, using everything from lawsuits to outright terrorist actions.

Unions MUST be prevented from doing this... but enacting any law to regulate them is a violation of Articles 4 and 7, which prohibit interfering with unions. Supporters will argue that Article 6 prevents illegal activities ordered by unions, but like many illegal cartels and the Mafia, unions have been known to use intimidation and terrorism to prevent people from speaking out against them, or revealing their involvement in illegal activity. Again, all Glorious Humanity calls for is a legal way to stop unions from becoming monopolies.

Before the supporters of this proposal accuse Glorious Humanity of being anti-union, we would like to state that we not only have unions, but laws already exist to protect employers from crushing them. However, in our legal system this protection is extended to everyone, employers may not crush unions, but unions may not crush individual workers, nor beat corporations into submission through illegal actions. Workers may bring suits and grievances against unions in federal courts, and union leaders are not untouchable just because they are part of a union. Every so often a lawsuit comes up against a union, and there have been a few arrests related to union intimidation tactics. If this proposal passes, Glorious Humanity will be facing the very real problem of how to check unions when we cannot make laws to regulate them.

Glorious Humanity believes this proposal to be a good idea, but without a means of checking union power, we cannot support it. If an amended version providing a means to stop unions from becoming monopolies can be put forward, we will definitely support it.

Alexander Johnson
UN Ambassador
Federation of Glorious Humanity

It's hard to know where gangsterism leaves off and effective unionism begins. I knew a man once who had been one of Jimmy Hoffa's attorneys. He told me that Hoffa was the kind of man who could have risen to the top in any field--business, labour, government, you name it. He told me he saw Hoffa sitting in a room one time making decisions one right after the other--bam, bam, bam--and every one was right. Many of the hotels and casinos in Las Vegas were built with Teamster money because of Hoffa.

Of course, Jimmy Hoffa cooperated with the mob and eventually went to prison (and was later killed, apparently by his mob associates). But there are still Teamsters around who will tell you that Jimmy Hoffa did more to help working people than anyone else who ever lived.

As they say, go figure. :)

The Republic of Ithuania would like to extend its thanks to Danka, Canadiana, and all other nations that withdrew their support of this proposal in a show of support for freedom and individual rights.

We look forward to working with you all to defeat this scourge of freedom on the UN floor.

The Republic of Ithuania would like to extend its thanks to Danka, Canadiana, and all other nations that withdrew their support of this proposal in a show of support for freedom and individual rights.

We look forward to working with you all to defeat this scourge of freedom on the UN floor.

Ithuana, did you study rhetoric at Kim Il Sung University??? :roll:

Huh?

Huh?

Well, your use of nouns and adjectives, in particular, reminded me of some of the stuff that comes out of North Korea. But maybe it's just a coincidence.