NationStates Jolt Archive

Just took a look at the next UN resolution in the queue. Needless to say, WE are very dissappointed something like that would make it to the UN. More leftist treehugging. The People of Feichmeist... i.e. (ME) will be withdrawning from the UN if Said Resolution Passes. The government of Feichmest.. i.e. (ME) reserves the right to Recognize or Ban any organization that is politcally, ethically, or subversive to the aims and goals or the Government.. i.e (ME).

Tom
El Jefe
(Copied to Texas Regional Messages)

More leftist treehugging.

You seem to have gotten your rightwing buzzwords confused. This is clearly "pinko-commie subversion" and not "treehugging hippie crap". Let's try to be internally consistent at least.

Besides, unless your government is explicitly being run by and for the owners of big business, we fail to see how this proposal encourages organizations that are politically and ethically subversive to the aims of government.

And if your government is being run by and for them, you'll just have to pardon us for siding with the interests of the vast majority of people in a society over those of the elites.
AFoFS UN Council

More leftist treehugging.

You seem to have gotten your rightwing buzzwords confused. This is clearly "pinko-commie subversion" and not "treehugging hippie crap". Let's try to be internally consistent at least.

Besides, unless your government is explicitly being run by and for the owners of big business, we fail to see how this proposal encourages organizations that are politically and ethically subversive to the aims of government.

And if your government is being run by and for them, you'll just have to pardon us for siding with the interests of the vast majority of people in a society over those of the elites.
AFoFS UN Council

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.

Well I think that the public might just interfere if the Union's activities consist of coercion and mob hits.

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.

Well I think that the public might just interfere if the Union's activities consist of coercion and mob hits.

"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."

Aren't mob hits illegal in your country?

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.

Well I think that the public might just interfere if the Union's activities consist of coercion and mob hits.

"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."

Aren't mob hits illegal in your country?

Then they contradict each other.

If you value 4 higher, you've basically legalized murder.
If you value 6 higher, than the whole resolution is moot since you can just make unions illegal.

More leftist treehugging.

You seem to have gotten your rightwing buzzwords confused. This is clearly "pinko-commie subversion" and not "treehugging hippie crap". Let's try to be internally consistent at least.



I consider anyone left of stalin to be a tree hugger


Besides, unless your government is explicitly being run by and for the owners of big business, we fail to see how this proposal encourages organizations that are politically and ethically subversive to the aims of government.


Any organization that the government deems un-necessary for the people, or that people form themselves without prior permission of the government is can be constrewed as politcally or ethically subersive to a government


And if your Government is being run by and for them, you'll just have to pardon us for siding with the interests of the vast majority of people in a society over those of the elites.
AFoFS UN Council

You're basically saying you don't believe in a Country's Own sovereign right to decide what is good or bad for their own people, especially if it falls outside your moral concepts

That is an odd reading.

Clause 4 is designed to make sure that unions are not instruments of the state. To make sure that they are independent entities, not dominated by the government. The government cannot tell them how to organize their unions, which representatives to elect, what union campaigns to run... (for real life examples, see Singapore, the old Soviet Union, every fascist state, etc)

Clause 6 says that however they organize themselves and whatever campaigns they engage in, they are free to act within the confines of the law that everyone else follows. No murder, no tax fraud, no racketeering, etc.

Clause 7 says that whatever else it says, the law:
shall not make strikes or unions illegal,
shall not put unions under the domination of the state,
shall not disallow unions from forming national and international federations,
and shall not allow anti-union discrimination in employment.

How about we skip everything else and just acknowledge that your key disagreement with it is the anti-union discrimination clause, and go from there?
AFoFS UN Council

I consider anyone left of stalin to be a tree hugger

I wouldn't call Stalin "left". I think he was authoritarian in general. In fact, I consider myself left of Stalin but I'm hardly a tree-hugger.

Any organization that the government deems un-necessary for the people, or that people form themselves without prior permission of the government is can be constrewed as politcally or ethically subersive to a government

And what's wrong with being politically subversive? And why do people NEED the permission of the government to form an association?


You're basically saying you don't believe in a Country's Own sovereign right to decide what is good or bad for their own people, especially if it falls outside your moral concepts

Yes, you are absolutely right. Your sovereignity ends when your people's liberty begins. I don't support this proposal but your arguments seem to be directed not against it, but against the freedom of association in general.

and shall not allow anti-union discrimination in employment.

And therein lies the problem--you wish to ride roughshod over the rights of certain individuals in order to create a special privileged class.

How egalitarian of you...

That is an odd reading.

Clause 4 is designed to make sure that unions are not instruments of the state. To make sure that they are independent entities, not dominated by the government. The government cannot tell them how to organize their unions, which representatives to elect, what union campaigns to run... (for real life examples, see Singapore, the old Soviet Union, every fascist state, etc)

Clause 6 says that however they organize themselves and whatever campaigns they engage in, they are free to act within the confines of the law that everyone else follows. No murder, no tax fraud, no racketeering, etc.

Clause 7 says that whatever else it says, the law:
shall not make strikes or unions illegal,
shall not put unions under the domination of the state,
shall not disallow unions from forming national and international federations,
and shall not allow anti-union discrimination in employment.

How about we skip everything else and just acknowledge that your key disagreement with it is the anti-union discrimination clause, and go from there?
AFoFS UN Council

I disagree with every part of it that gives a right to a union that is beyond rights given to other free associations of individuals. Those aren't rights, those are special privileges. Which means someone else's rights are violated. I see where you are trying to go with Clause 4 now, but you should improve the wording. Maybe add "nonviolently and noncoercively" in it or something. Also, how do you determine "anti-union discrimination"?

Besides, unless your government is explicitly being run by and for the owners of big business, we fail to see how this proposal encourages organizations that are politically and ethically subversive to the aims of government.


Any organization that the government deems un-necessary for the people, or that people form themselves without prior permission of the government is can be constrewed as politcally or ethically subersive to a government


And if your Government is being run by and for them, you'll just have to pardon us for siding with the interests of the vast majority of people in a society over those of the elites.
AFoFS UN Council

You're basically saying you don't believe in a Country's Own sovereign right to decide what is good or bad for their own people, especially if it falls outside your moral concepts

Sorry, but we do not see much point in debating sovereignty with authoritarians. Especially those that don't even pretend to care about their people, who view their people as objects to be controlled and dominated rather than their source of any semblance of legitimacy.

People are sovereign, not the state.

But this is beyond the debate over labor unions.
AFoFS UN Council

People are sovereign, not the state.

The difference between you and I is that I am aware of that.

My key disagreement with this, is that this proposal mandates that the government is not allowed to Oversee or Organize these unions. Unions only work in stable countries where the politcally backlash from a disagreement isn't liable to lead to a change in regime. The government in these less than stable countries need to have a hand in their development, or have the ability to put restrictions or oversee these organizations, to ensure that they stay in power ( because every government wants to stay in power). Then there's the fact the unions don't work too well in non democratic nations as it gives a form of limited power to the people, power that these governments is not ready or unwilling to give to their people, which changes the political infrastructure of countries, therefore eroding the government's control of their citizens. And Control is a key factor in many many governments. Honestly I think all these UN resolutions do is force everybody to become a democratic style government... on issue at a time.

My key disagreement with this, is that this proposal mandates that the government is not allowed to Oversee or Organize these unions. Unions only work in stable countries where the politcally backlash from a disagreement isn't liable to lead to a change in regime. The government in these less than stable countries need to have a hand in their development, or have the ability to put restrictions or oversee these organizations, to ensure that they stay in power ( because every government wants to stay in power). Then there's the fact the unions don't work too well in non democratic nations as it gives a form of limited power to the people, power that these governments is not ready or unwilling to give to their people, which changes the political infrastructure of countries, therefore eroding the government's control of their citizens. And Control is a key factor in many many governments. Honestly I think all these UN resolutions do is force everybody to become a democratic style government... one issue at a time.

And this is bad... because?

People are sovereign, not the state.

The difference between you and I is that I am aware of that.

thus speaks captain belowaveragepoliticalfreedoms.

(i know, i know. "blah blah that doesn't matter etc." seriously though, why are you here playing this game? if you don't want to play by the game's rules and the game's description of your country, then what is the point?)

[qoute]

(i know, i know. "blah blah that doesn't matter etc." seriously though, why are you here playing this game? if you don't want to play by the game's rules and the game's description of your country, then what is the point?)[/quote]

So voiceing my opinions are not part of the games rules? And if you checked out the game's description of my country, you'd see that we're a small country with no political Freedoms ruled by a corrupt government that only grants limited civil rights to the people. I fail to see how the opinions that I expressed (which also happen to be my own) fail to coincide with the description of my country.

(i know, i know. "blah blah that doesn't matter etc." seriously though, why are you here playing this game? if you don't want to play by the game's rules and the game's description of your country, then what is the point?)

So voiceing my opinions are not part of the games rules? And if you checked out the game's description of my country, you'd see that we're a small country with no political Freedoms ruled by a corrupt government that only grants limited civil rights to the people. I fail to see how the opinions that I expressed (which also happen to be my own) fail to coincide with the description of my country.

I think he was referring to Ithuania.

OH


Duh

That is an odd reading.

Clause 7 says that whatever else it says, the law:
shall not make strikes or unions illegal,
shall not put unions under the domination of the state,
shall not disallow unions from forming national and international federations,
and shall not allow anti-union discrimination in employment.


Dear Free Soviets,

Thank you for your message.

I do not interpret clauses 5 and 7 as prohibiting legislation to be passed outlawing Secondary Picketing within my own nation.

I saw that there was, potentially, a grey area in relation to secondary picketing, which is why I moved my amendment. Unfortunately, this was not approved for the vote by the UN.

However, clause 5 of your resolution provides that:

"Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment"

I note the words "their employment" and deduce that the provision does not therefore prohibit legislation dealing with secondary picketing, since secondary picketing is necessarily not something which concerns "their employment".

I thought it would be preferable to have an express resolution dealing with that issue rather than having it ambiguous in that way; however, I am content for the matter to be left as it is.

Certainly, it would be good to protect workers' rights generally, and I shall therefore be supporting the Rights of Labor Unions motion.

Kind regards,

His Holiness Emperor Matt the Shrimp

Daily union strikes ravage my nation. I for one am for this resolution.

I am against because there are too many special privileges given to unions. Unions should be treated NO differently from any other association. If the creator wants to concern himself with freedom of association, then do such. Do not specify to favour one kind of association over another.

Unions have done some good, but also do a lot of bad. In theory, they should protect the rights of workers. However, many unions in America today have become little more than political lobbying organizations. Because of the fear of "scabs," in many industries and companies everyone MUST be a member of the union, pledge their money to the union, and thus support whatever political goals the union has. A fine example is the NEA: in theory, it protects teachers. In reality, it has a clear political agenda (working very closely with the Democratic party), and any member (that would be all public school teachers) that disagrees is intimidated or shouted down into submission or silence.

Unions have done some good, but also do a lot of bad. In theory, they should protect the rights of workers. However, many unions in America today have become little more than political lobbying organizations. Because of the fear of "scabs," in many industries and companies everyone MUST be a member of the union, pledge their money to the union, and thus support whatever political goals the union has. A fine example is the NEA: in theory, it protects teachers. In reality, it has a clear political agenda (working very closely with the Democratic party), and any member (that would be all public school teachers) that disagrees is intimidated or shouted down into submission or silence.

Eh, if the people don't like the union they should form a new one or elect new leadership. If your country doesn't like single-union closed shops, you should setup some other system, proportional representation in collective bargaining perhaps.

The benefits of unions far outweigh any negatives. If the people in your nation aren't working in sweatshops, aren't working 12 hour days, aren't living in slums, and are making something remotely resembling a living wage, they have a union to thank. We seek to expand this to the world.
AFoFS UN Council

I disagree with every part of it that gives a right to a union that is beyond rights given to other free associations of individuals. Those aren't rights, those are special privileges. Which means someone else's rights are violated. I see where you are trying to go with Clause 4 now, but you should improve the wording. Maybe add "nonviolently and noncoercively" in it or something. Also, how do you determine "anti-union discrimination"?

Sometimes things that you would term "special privileges" are necessary to counter the effects of other people's "rights" that we as a society find to be bad.

Of course, we would phrase it differently. We would claim that you have misapplied the term "rights" to some actions that are clearly privilege - the unhindered exploitation of labor, for example.

As for determining anti-union discrimination, this could be done the same way any form of anti-discrimination enforcement is done. You can create some form of regulatory or watch-dog body. Hey, we could even make it a privatized one, just for you. The key question type would be something like "are people who, aside from their union activity, are reasonably competent and hard-working being systematically fired or not hired?" If yes, then you have reasonable grounds for suspecting anti-union discrimination.

Or you could go full out to worker's self-management like we have in the Anarchist Federation of Free Soviets. Then it isn't an issue at all.

AFoFS UN Council

Point 8 of the resolution is unsupportable, otherwise it is a reasonable is somewhat too conservative proposal. We'll vote 'yes.'

Daily union strikes ravage my nation. I for one am for this resolution.

One of the more sensible posts on this thread…anyway, given that the workers are the majority in any society and it is their labour that creates all wealth how given allowing to defend themselves a “special privilege”? Too often the rich and powerful minority dominate the “interests” of a country at the expense of the weak and powerless majority (and indeed international security) so a resolution to change this imbalance will be backed will be backed fully by the Urbanites.

This stupid resolution makes the labor unions the holder of all power in all countries. They can withold their services at any time and no one has any leverage over them for any reason. Labor unions can serve a useful function, but unions with this much power are dangerous.


Vote NO!

Unions have done some good, but also do a lot of bad. In theory, they should protect the rights of workers. However, many unions in America today have become little more than political lobbying organizations. Because of the fear of "scabs," in many industries and companies everyone MUST be a member of the union, pledge their money to the union, and thus support whatever political goals the union has. A fine example is the NEA: in theory, it protects teachers. In reality, it has a clear political agenda (working very closely with the Democratic party), and any member (that would be all public school teachers) that disagrees is intimidated or shouted down into submission or silence.

Eh, if the people don't like the union they should form a new one or elect new leadership. If your country doesn't like single-union closed shops, you should setup some other system, proportional representation in collective bargaining perhaps.

The benefits of unions far outweigh any negatives. If the people in your nation aren't working in sweatshops, aren't working 12 hour days, aren't living in slums, and are making something remotely resembling a living wage, they have a union to thank. We seek to expand this to the world.
AFoFS UN Council

maybe 100 years ago they had a union to thank. Labor unions today are nothing but impediments to progress. you're paid more to stay out of them with better benefits.

Unions are illegal in FelisCatus for a simple and logical reason: if these ppl are so smart that they want to change something alredy existing, just should just create their own enterprise and not try to mess up the things that are alredy in place. 90% of these newly create enterprise were doomed to fail the first day they were born, and they all gone to bankrupcy. The morale is: if you think you can do better, go and make it happen elsewhere.

This may looks drastic, but just try it, it works!

I kind of agree with Eli. Unions are now just annoying organizations that piss everyone off. I understand that they are their to protect the basic rights of the worker from being exploited by their employer. Granted. It is an excellent cause. But unions, like Eli siad, with too much power become a political force within themselves, i.e. communism. Now, communism in theory and in principle is not a bad concept, but it has failed to be properly applied in any nation. In the end, communistic regimes have ended up becoming totalitarian. Thus, unions are good, but unions with power are bad.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

The Omnipotent Boombaddy does not agree with this proposal. While the citizens of Boombadadada are certainly free to form unions, this proposal gives unions more power than any other free organization.
It is also pushing nations in a more line of economic developement that may not coincide with the nations best interests or the interests of her citizens.
Therefore, we must push to turn down such a resolution even though we personally would support the benefits potentially granted by some unions.

The Omnipotent Boombaddy does not agree with this proposal. While the citizens of Boombadadada are certainly free to form unions, this proposal gives unions more power than any other free organization.
It is also pushing nations in a more line of economic developement that may not coincide with the nations best interests or the interests of her citizens.
Therefore, we must push to turn down such a resolution even though we personally would support the benefits potentially granted by some unions.

If this resolution is passed, will it be removing the "issues" that deal with unions?

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.

We support these clauses and have no objections thereto.

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.

Now here a question is raised. Although we agree with this clause in general, it could be interpreted as waiving national criminal laws, which we oppose.

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.

No objection here, we support this clause.

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.

Ah-ha! This clearly overrides our Section 4 worries. As long as all laws are respected, Section 4 is okay and Section 6 confirms that.

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 is intended to prevent clear violations, not Section 6 laws, in our interpretation.

Therefore, we support this resolution. I have cast my regional vote for it and will, with the approval of a plurality of Democratic Underground UN Ambassadors, be casting my Delegate Votes FOR this resolution.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
Lord Evif, Goobergunch

If this resolution is passed, will it be removing the "issues" that deal with unions?

No.

This has been an OOC post.