NationStates Jolt Archive

Keep the UN out of Unions and enterprise agreements!

A nation should have the right to stop the corruption indemic of unions and be able to make enterprise agreements directly with employees.

The UN having intervention in child slave labour or such is one thing, but making Unions UN enforceable?

The Nation of Carmarthen prides itself not only on it's expansive Economy, but also on its Political Freedoms and Civil Rights. By bringing this resolution into being you force socialistic mores upon nations whose precepts follow no such thing!

This is not a proposal suitable for the terms of the United Nations, as this is not an area in which they should delve. Keep the Economy and Enterprise Agreements of a Nation just that - of a Nation.

This proposal is damaging to the United Nations and will see a number of nations leave should it be enacted.

The current resolution will effectively force every UN country into being a Communist state, a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. And I for one do not think it is right that every single UN member nation be forced into being a left-wing worker's paradise when this goes against their principles, whatever those may be. I appreciate that some nations want more power for their workers, but this is going too far. I am a right-wing nation, and not a member of the UN...and right now I'm thankful.

The Government of the Dominion of Dinoponera concurrs. We are particularly worried about this proposal. In particular, the clause preventing governments from regulating union elections will enable unions to select their leaders undemocratically. When this is considered alongside the new powers the proposal wishes to grant unions it is nothing less than a concerted attack on the powers of the state. Those who wish to be ruled by Worker's Councils should move to a communist state rather than force all UN members to yield their powers to unelected union leaders.

The Government of the Dominion of Dinoponera strongly advises all fellow nations to vote against this proposal should it reach the floor of the General Assembly of the UN.

Agreed!

Do not bring this resolution into being in some false sense that you are doing what is "Right". All you are doing is playing into the trap of Socialism and damaging your economy.

Tu Casa, Mi Casa.

With respect to the learned delegates who have posted on this thread, I disagree.

Article 6 of the resolution provides:

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.

It is quite simple. If there is a law within your nation which guarantees the right to vote for one's ordinary citizens, then any attempt by a union to pass its own internal laws in respect of balloting or voting for leaders on anything other than on the basis of "one member, one vote" would be in breach of the pre-existing law as to the rights of universal franchise.

This is certainly how this resolution will be applied within the Holy Empire of Matt the Shrimp.

As to another concern held by the Holy Empire, namely concerning the law as to secondary picketing, constitutional experts within our nation have confirmed that the propsed resolution would not prevent the Holy Empire from passing a law banning secondary picketing. This is because Article 7 (prohibiting national law "contradicting these guarantees") must be read in accordance with Article 5:

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

Since, of course, the whole issue of secondary picketing is based on the fact that strike action is sought in respect of an issue expressly NOT concerned with their employment, the Holy Empire will be able to pass laws prohibiting secondary picketing.

Having dealt with these concerns, The Holy Empire of Matt the Shrimp urges delegates to approve this motion, since it is in the best interests of the freedom and rights of workers to form associations - after all, a good workforce is a happy one.

Yours sincerely,

His Holiness Emperor Matt the Shrimp
Emperor of Shrimparum
Overlord of the Isles of Crevette
Provost of the Priory of Parkum

Regional UN Delegate, Shrimper Zone

The Radical Libertarian Paradise of Frigben disagrees with forcing this resolution upon all members. The purpose of the United Nations originally was to ensure global peace - not to meddle with the internal affairs of its members. Frigben's vote is a vehement 'no.' Such issues as these are up to individual nations to decide. Also, this resolution addresses things too broadly. What would happen to a nation which depends on its public transportation industry to get its citizens to work? Are unions to be allowed to bring an entire nation to a halt? We of Frigben strongly disagree with this motion and urge all other UN members to reject it.

Usually the Benevolent Jenny speaks clearly and it is apparent that she has an education. However on this issue I must regress.

Unions SUCK!

1. They prevent individuals from getting ahead because they are PUNISHED by their own labor unions for performing better, accepting and completeing extra assignments.

2. The prevent management from saving money because everyone must recieve the same benefits package. I could have so much more for my retirement if I could have the money to invest at my own disgression, instead of being forced to contribute to the Union's pension.

3. Unions are anti-free enterprise. If the workers are willing to work 80 hour work weeks for a handful of cheap shiny beads, good for me! When they get smart and realize that they can make more for less money in the next town over, then I will compete by raising wages. I will reward hard workers and fire lazy bums.

4. This resolution infringes on the soverieng rights of ALL nations. The UN should stick to fishing rights in international waters and global trade agreements.

UNIONS SUCK!

The Benevolent Jenny

As to another concern held by the Holy Empire, namely concerning the law as to secondary picketing, constitutional experts within our nation have confirmed that the propsed resolution would not prevent the Holy Empire from passing a law banning secondary picketing. This is because Article 7 (prohibiting national law "contradicting these guarantees") must be read in accordance with Article 5:


That Article 7 contradicts Article 5 is another reason for member states to reject this proposal - it is poorly drafted.

The Dominion of Dinoponera is known for its commitment to the political and personal freedoms of its citizens, and our government in no way opposes the free association of workers into unions and similiar bodies. However, the present proposal goes further than this and attempts to provide for such associations significant political power. This is an unacceptable challenge to the powers of a democratically elected government.

With respect to the learned delegates who have posted on this thread, I disagree.

Article 6 of the resolution provides:

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.

...which is then immediately contradicted by this:

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.

If you already have laws that work against these "provided guarantees", they cannot be enforced. Says who? The UN does not have a police force, and I'm sure nobody is about to let it become a "World Government".

I totally agree with the thread creator. This proposal, while seemingly innocent, serves a dangerous anticapitalist agenda. Unions will be totally out of control. I urge all sensible UN members to vote against this resolution forthwith.

As a delegate of the 'Nederland' region I am convinced I will be able to persuade my countrymen to vote against this resolution as well.

Vote NAY!

I agree with the majority of posts in this thread with respect to the current resolution. The enactment of such legislation would be a detriment to the economy of any nation in which it is enforced. It clearly imposes on my ability to independently run my country. Anyone who thinks that they want to vote for this resolution should read it carefully before making the decision because it is somewhat picky. I firmly believe that there is some benefit to unionized workers in certain industries, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Labor unions should not be regulated by international law given that the need for and use of unions in each country is different. Should such legislation pass, labor unions could quite possibly spring up everywhere, including where they are not needed, and there would be very little the government could do to stop them from deteriorating a strong economy into socialism.
We must realize that an employer should have the right to reward hard work and punish laziness as s/he sees fit. If they were to be denied such a right, businesses could end up overpaying workers for sub-par labor and would in turn lose money and eventually bottom out. Let's just think before we act, because I know you all want to keep those moneymaking corporations delivering luxuries to your lives.
(Sorry about the last bit, it's a little tongue-in-cheek.)
:roll:

Agreed, the UN should not have any business in how a country views unions! They should not be enforced due to the corruption that can come from such unions!

It would give them too much power. The unions could easily hold an entire nation in an economic gridlock while waiting for their demands to be met!

It would be the equivalent of taking hostages!

I agree that unions can be great assets to a nation, but to enforce them would give them too much power.

Ebian Akushitsu
Leader of The Holy Empire of Ebi

Where are those that support this proposal? There is no smell of verbal battle...

However, I am in general agreement with the majorities of statements made in this post.

If a particular nation has some heavy restrictions upon collective action in general due to a state of emergency, then number four is severly restricted by number six. However, number seven then forces the government to forego a limit upon unions. What makes these organizations so much more special than any other collective organization? Special privileges still equals inequality. In the end, corporations would be SO governed by the unions and the workers that the system deteriorates. Unlike government, corporations do not have to be run democratically, just efficiently. And as we have seen time and time again, democracy is not efficient. Certainly, worker input should be allowed, and worker opinions should be respected, but in the end the corporation would die if the workers took over because they would keep demanding more pay raises. In the end, the corporation dies... and then where are the workers?

Unemployed.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Agreed, the UN should not have any business in how a country views unions! They should not be enforced due to the corruption that can come from such unions!

It would give them too much power. The unions could easily hold an entire nation in an economic gridlock while waiting for their demands to be met!

It would be the equivalent of taking hostages!

I agree that unions can be great assets to a nation, but to enforce them would give them too much power.

Ebian Akushitsu
Leader of The Holy Empire of Ebi

Votes For: 3723

Votes Against: 760

Hmm, I don't think the majority agrees some how, if you’re so bothered why don't you create your own version of the UN?

Early days yet. The Equality for All folks were crowing about their victory initially, but then things went a bit wrong for them.

Agreed, the UN should not have any business in how a country views unions! They should not be enforced due to the corruption that can come from such unions!

It would give them too much power. The unions could easily hold an entire nation in an economic gridlock while waiting for their demands to be met!

It would be the equivalent of taking hostages!

I agree that unions can be great assets to a nation, but to enforce them would give them too much power.

Ebian Akushitsu
Leader of The Holy Empire of Ebi

Votes For: 3723

Votes Against: 760

Hmm, I don't think the majority agrees some how, if you’re so bothered why don't you create your own version of the UN?

It is still early in the voting period. We will see where this resolution goes.

Also it is better to keep your remarks less sarcastic and more, shall we say, productive.

Ebian Akushitsu
Leader of The Holy Empire of Ebi

Agreed, the UN should not have any business in how a country views unions! They should not be enforced due to the corruption that can come from such unions!

It would give them too much power. The unions could easily hold an entire nation in an economic gridlock while waiting for their demands to be met!

It would be the equivalent of taking hostages!

I agree that unions can be great assets to a nation, but to enforce them would give them too much power.

Ebian Akushitsu
Leader of The Holy Empire of Ebi

Votes For: 3723

Votes Against: 760

Hmm, I don't think the majority agrees some how, if you’re so bothered why don't you create your own version of the UN?

It is still early in the voting period. We will see where this resolution goes.

Also it is better to keep your remarks less sarcastic and more, shall we say, productive.

Ebian Akushitsu
Leader of The Holy Empire of Ebi

As much as it pains me to admit it, this one will probably pass on account of the UN states' complacency. After some two weeks of membership, I will be leaving the UN on Monday if the votes don't swing around in our favor.

why don't we just kill all of the union workers...

it's faster than starving them

Also posted in one other thread on the subject:

Thank goodness Beelze left the United Nations... Who the hell is the UN to tell every sovereign nation in the world that they are REQUIRED to recognize all labor unions and are not permitted to legislate the matter themselves?

Whether or not a nation wishes to force corporations to recognize labor unions (the government of Beelze never would) is one thing; but for the UN to seek to require that thousands of entire nations do so is absurd. But then, the UN as a whole has proven itself to be absurd, with proposal after proposal and resolution after resolution that seek to take rights away from member nations on the whims of such nations as this one, which calls itself "Free Soviets" and hails from a region named the "Anticapitalist Alliance."

Mephisto
Foreign Minister,
The Dominion of Beelze

And in case you think there is anything vague about this resolution that you might assume is the resolution of poor wording:

They had plenty of discussion before they put up this resolution in the Anticapitalist Alliance region's forum:

http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=421

The third post, from that thread, is a favorite (quoted here in case they try to hide it):


"I agree with SeOCC. While your phraseology is perfectly agreeable to me, we have to beat the capitalists at one of their best games: trickery, and rhetoric is a powerful tool. It has to be phrased in words that won't raise flags for them. Remember, this sword has two edges: grabbing attention, abd studiously directing attention away from content."


And to see the discussion they've been having since the resolution was approved:

http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=521

We suggest strongly that you read these two threads, in their entirety, as soon as possible... in case they should try to hide them from all of you by either editing their posts or locking out guest access to the forum. Once you've read their posts, it should be abundantly clear that there is nothing incidental nor accidentaly about the language in this resolution. If something seems vague, it was intentionally kept vague... and they will follow this resolution up with other seemingly harmless ones that, together, will take more and more rights away from sovereign nations and reform the world in their image.

Mephisto
Foreign Minister,
The Dominion of Beelze

I agree, furthermore point 4 of the current resoloutions states:

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.

Having no interference by public authorities means that police could not have any power over the unions, and the creation of there rules, so if the constitutions broke the nations law, the police would be powerless to do anything about it. Think of the insane power this would give to the unions. They would be able to break any laws they chose too, the result: anarchy!

M.P. Rondey Brittania, Minister of Trade for Micosia

Look, the workers in almost all countries make up the majority of the population and the unions protect the workers so there for in the interests of basic human rights the UN should back the unions!
(Although I think it would be better if the UN was given some powers over the unions in order to take it away from the Mafia e.g. - funding)

In my original posts, which I've since edited and corrected, I made a mistake in the first URL, where you can see the Anticapitalist Alliance region's discussion of planning out this resolution. The correct URL is:

http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=421

My Apologies for the error.

And in case you think there is anything vague about this resolution that you might assume is the resolution of poor wording:

They had plenty of discussion before they put up this resolution in the Anticapitalist Alliance region's forum:

http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=421

The third post, from that thread, is a favorite (quoted here in case they try to hide it):


"I agree with SeOCC. While your phraseology is perfectly agreeable to me, we have to beat the capitalists at one of their best games: trickery, and rhetoric is a powerful tool. It has to be phrased in words that won't raise flags for them. Remember, this sword has two edges: grabbing attention, abd studiously directing attention away from content."


And to see the discussion they've been having since the resolution was approved:

http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=521

We suggest strongly that you read these two threads, in their entirety, as soon as possible... in case they should try to hide them from all of you by either editing their posts or locking out guest access to the forum. Once you've read their posts, it should be abundantly clear that there is nothing incidental nor accidentaly about the language in this resolution. If something seems vague, it was intentionally kept vague... and they will follow this resolution up with other seemingly harmless ones that, together, will take more and more rights away from sovereign nations and reform the world in their image.

Mephisto
Foreign Minister,
The Dominion of Beelze

Look, the workers in almost all countries make up the majority of the population and the unions protect the workers so there for in the interests of basic human rights the UN should back the unions!
(Although I think it would be better if the UN was given some powers over the unions in order to take it away from the Mafia e.g. - funding)

That is an argument in favour of tyranny of the majority. The Government of the Dominion of Dinoponera wishes to protect the rights of all its citizens, not just those who belong to Trade Unions. Our country has made great progress in this field and the UN itself has called the civil freedoms enjoyed by our citizens 'superb'. As such, we do not feel that we need to be lectured to by other nations concerning our civil liberties. Nor do we feel that the UN need interfer directly in the governance of our nation. This resolution does precisely that, and not only that it also attempts to give the unions as much power as the state by preventing any form of public body (even the judiciary!) from affecting the way unions are run.

It is the UN's charter to protect human rights. It is not the UN's charter to protect the rights of one organisation over the rights of another.

The governments of our respective nations each pursue the formula of law (or lack thereof), enforcement (or lack thereof), public policy (or lack thereof) and economic regulation (or lack thereof) which we believe most likely to achieve our vision for society. There are communist nations with low crime rates and dictatorships with low crime rates. There are highly economically successful nations of a variety of government formats. Therefore, it is shortsighted for the UN to intervene in the law, enforcement, public policy AND economic regulation of all member states.

With all due respect to any impulse to protect the proletariat, whom Dendrys considers to be free and entitled to equal protection under the law -- Dendrys does not wish to participate in a resolution to give a proletariat organisation special rights such as the ability to charter outside any federal regulations, freedom from intervention by federal law enforcement (which would prohibit prosecution of monopolistic action within unions, not to mention embezzlement, fraud, criminal coercion and other crimes Dendrys treats at a federal level), freedom from federal intervention programs to promote equality, education and/or safety, and freedom from any efforts Dendrys may need to make to keep the economy functional, for the survival of our citizens.

In short, the resolution is too inflexible and grants too much power to non-governmental groups -- and to only one kind of non-governmental group. Dendrys notes that in our nation, religious organisations, families or clans, voluntary local communes, private schooling agencies, independent small businesses, library associations, charity foundations and many other groups are considered equally vital to our nation's welfare. Dendrys does not wish to pass legislation giving only one type of group the freedom to act outside federal law.



Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

Kierannia while most of the population may work, it doesn't mean that unions represent all of the workers. Yes even managers have to do work in the form of paper work, after all they fire someone just because they can, they evaluate there workers and fire the slackers. This proposal gives the unions more power than the government which is unacceptable and it gives them more power then the managers which is unacceptable. While Jurian States believes that workers in low paying jobs have the right to unionize, we also realize that that managers need to have the right to fire lazy bums, prevent closed shops, and the government needs to people to stop union strikes when they can cause serious harm to the country and its people. Furthermore we believe that Unions can be rather unfair to their members and none members at the same work place. "Fair isn't always equal, and equal isn't always fair."

The Radical Libertarian Paradise of Frigben disagrees with forcing this resolution upon all members. The purpose of the United Nations originally was to ensure global peace - not to meddle with the internal affairs of its members. Frigben's vote is a vehement 'no.' Such issues as these are up to individual nations to decide. Also, this resolution addresses things too broadly. What would happen to a nation which depends on its public transportation industry to get its citizens to work? Are unions to be allowed to bring an entire nation to a halt? We of Frigben strongly disagree with this motion and urge all other UN members to reject it.

Does this resolution enforce essential services?
You mention the public transport industry, we're having this problem right now in Montreal. (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/17/montreal_strike031117)

However, subways and buses will run during rush hours Monday to Friday. It's part of an agreement with Quebec's Essential Services Council, which decides whether public service strikes will endanger public health and safety.

Will this resolution allow a sort of Essential Services Council?

No. Clause 4 expressly forbids any interferance by public bodies in the running of a union.