NationStates Jolt Archive

Had it been worded differently, where the state had a greater say, then I wouldn't have any objection to this resolution. But as it is right now, the state will be hostage to the whims of a Non-Governmental Organization(NGO). By having no monitoring capability, the security of the state will be in jeopardy as any undesirable, be it criminal, terrorist or foreign agent, could gain power by way of an international union and could diktat terms to any government. Parts 4 and 6 of this resolution are clearly in contradiction.

I for one have nothing against the formation of guilds/labor unions for the purpose of quality control, negotiation against other unions and for the protection of workers livelihoods within means(not stifling the greater economy); nor am I against unions meeting with representatives of like unions from foreign lands as part of an infomal body, such as a symposium, for the sharing of ideas - doctors in a medical conference, for example. But this is too much: it is too much for the government to stomach and smacks of Communist attempt to strangle capitalist institutions.

I hope I've made my case and I hope I could count on your support in defeating this resolution.

Absolutely!

I'm not in the UN anymore for precisely this reason:

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.
Even if I was still in the UN I'd make all the laws I wanted against this resolution. So what if I did? What are you gonna do about it? Has a UN police force been made to stop me? Is the UN the "World Government"? Absolutely not. It's an international mediator. Resolutions about laws shouldn't exist. They should just be collective agreements such as to build up military forces, or recognize the rights of a certain group. In this case, it starts off okay, but proceeds way past a proper UN proposal.

"...which is precisely why you're no longer a member of the UN. *hic!*
The current UN resolution is first and foremost, a fundamental fffffff. *brrurp* for a fairer, freeerer world"

- Felix Jethoscopes, Shiree Herald to the UN - after tucking into his third (perfectly pre-emptive and possibly premature) celebratory cup of punch.

There could be an amendment proposed for gretaer supervision and regulation of unions.

The Government of Dinoponera has already made its views on this matter known. We are deeply concerned by the current proposal before the UN General Assembly on the grounds that it could lead to the overthrow of a democratically elected government by undemocratically elected union leaders.

The UN was not established to interfer directly in the economic policies of member states. We in the Dominion of Dinoponera are staunch proponents of civil and political freedoms, and it is for this very reason that we urge all our fellow nations to reject the current proposal which disguises with fair words an attempt to destroy democracy.

The resolution as proposed is indefensible. The ability to setup independent organizations without any oversight is open invitation to corruption of these organizations by gangsters and subversive elements. Vote No!

Any NGO with that sort of control over a vital portion of any country is ridiculous. Some simple changes and that propsal will work much better for everyone.

But it's too late to make such changes. Had the creator of this resolution allowed more room for discussion prior to putting up this resolution, I would not have had this much casue to complain.

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.

Vot NAY!

Before voting in favor of this resolution, ask yourself one question:

"Do I want to be like France?"

If your answer is no, vote against the resolution.

Unlike the previous resolutions, which wereindeed disasters waiting to happen, this resolution is perfectly acceptable. Provision 6 contains the necessary safeguards to protect nations and their citizens. Only laws specifically tageted to interfere with labor unions' organizational capacities are prevented: You can still stop labor unions from committing murder, treason, or fraud, so long as those laws weren't specifically created to interfere with union activity.

(In our interpretation of the resolution, each provision puts limiting factors on the provisions that come before it. This is a fairly standard way of interpreting laws.)

We in Gurthark support this resolution.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The Government of SGWarning urges all UN member nations to join us in an effort to defeat this resolution. Our nation was founded on the principle of strong leadership and guidance for our population.

(Through Diplomatic Back Channels: And lets face it certain people are more fit to provide strong leadership than others (i.e. the great unwashed masses))

If this resolution passes it will be a dire threat to the ability of central governements to provide strong leadership both domestically and internationally.

Unlike the previous resolutions, which wereindeed disasters waiting to happen, this resolution is perfectly acceptable. Provision 6 contains the necessary safeguards to protect nations and their citizens. Only laws specifically tageted to interfere with labor unions' organizational capacities are prevented: You can still stop labor unions from committing murder, treason, or fraud, so long as those laws weren't specifically created to interfere with union activity.

(In our interpretation of the resolution, each provision puts limiting factors on the provisions that come before it. This is a fairly standard way of interpreting laws.)

We in Gurthark support this resolution.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Then provision 6 is overruled by #7. I'd say you should re-read this resolution carefully. The 6th Article is just an afterthought to appease some folks and nothing more. Everything else in this proposal is geared towards reducing sovereignty. An NGO has no right to act above the laws of the land, but it is clearly the intent of the creator of this topic to do such a thing. Had the intention been to respect the rights of states, then stronger language would have been used. At present, the economic system will be held hostage by Communists.

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

Of course, rational debates and discussions with your labor unions are out of the question with you people, right?

In a well run nation, wouldn't the appeasment of both the workers and their labour unions, as well as the corporate heads and the state, be what you're working for? I haven't seen this discussed yet.

I'm voting for the resolution because people need and demand labor unions. If you give it to them in a mandatory fashion, then the focus will shift. Unions will lose their power because then they will have no one to fight- besides themselves. The balance must be struck, and unions and corporations must come behind the people. When people realize that working for themselves and for the betterement of their nationstate (or free land, such as mine), the unions and the corporations lose their power.

The Jurian States also believes that this proposal invites disaster, not to long ago our government tried to intervene in a labor dispute on behalf of the union and how did the unions thank as you ask. More of them took to the streets creating traffic proplems and causing our economy to decline. We do believe that Blue Collar workers and people with lesser jobs have a right to reate unions to negotiate with companies to make sure they get a fair pay. However this proposal allows any group to form unions even if they are making 6 digit salaries! Also international unions are a bad idea, what may be fair salary in Aquilogna or Gurthark may not be fair or reasonable salary in the Jurian States. Finally, this proposal gives to much power because the unions could then force businesses to only hire union members. Sure some of you may say that wouldn't be to bad, sure the union may require some fees but this gives the union unfair representation since they don'e represent the interests of all of their members and that $5 fee is a lot of money to the hobo without a house, car or a cardboard box.

I agree that this is a terrible resolution, but I respectfully disagree with Aegonia on one point: Aegonia said that the resolution's language started out okay. I totally disagree! The very first line of the resolution compels all UN members to recognize unions. Who in the hell is the UN to tell me how to run my economy??

If this resolution passes, I am out of the UN. People need to start thinking rationally before signing on to these touchy feely resolutions. Is it any coincidence that a communist nation originated this bill?

For God's sake, leave my nation alone! My progress indicators are the following:
a. Civil Rights = Excellent
b. Economy= Powerhouse
c. Political Rights= Superb

I think I know how to run my own country, thank you very much.

Joe Halstead
People's Republic of Fromundaland

But it's too late to make such changes. Had the creator of this resolution allowed more room for discussion prior to putting up this resolution, I would not have had this much casue to complain.

Aquilogna et al.,

There was plenty of discussion before they put up this resolution:

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 you all read these two threads fully as soon as possible, in case they should try to hide them from all of you. Doing so will demonstrate that there is nothing incidental 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

Beelze, the discussion took place on another board so chances are most of us didn't even know that such a rediculous proposal was being drafted. Furthermore, I think it would be safe to assume that no one who helped to draft that proposal even mentioned that they were doing it in the Nation States UN board. Taking all of this into account, it seems that the people behind this draft went out of their way to keep the more rational nations from commenting on the proposal showing that they intent to infrindge upon the rights of others nations by forces their points of view on the rest of us. Now the question is will their flowery language when over enough votes to see proposal pass or will people actually use their brains and see this proposal for the BS that it is and vote to defeat it. However I have no intention of having communism forced upon my nation so if the proposal passes the Jurian States will withdraw from the UN and condem as a tool of tyrants that care not for the rights or others.

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

Labor Unions have been banned in Xanthal for thousands of years. We object to the precedent this resolution will set for our Earth colony. A Union is bad enough. When it can exert control over an entire government and society unchecked it is pure insanity.

Once again a resolution has been brought up that does not let a nation govern its own organizations. A Labor group should never, ever have more power than a nation's government, and with this resolution, you give it to them. The oppressed will become the oppressor. I urge all sane and intelligent members of the UN to strike this stupid resolution down.

Speaker.

This has to be one of the worst ideas to hit the floor of the UN General Assembly. Only the ban on harming any and all forms of life is worse. The resolution seems very reasonable at first glance, but on closer inspection the dangers of this proposal are revealed.

Clause 2 forces governments to aid unions in striking. Furthermore it encourages unions to strike for 60+ days by demanding that negotiators be supplied at the 60 day mark.

Clause 4 prevents governments from insisting on democratic elections for unions. It also prevents union members from calling for judicial review of union decisions. This allows union leaders to run their organisations in an undemocratic manner without any recourse for disenfranchised members.

Clause 5 protects union-members against employers, but it does not protect non-union members against unions. This will lead to 'closed shop' situations, where a union demands that employees become members in order to remain employed.

Clauses 6 and 7 are in opposition.

With this in mind, the Government of Dinoponera calls upon our fellow nations to consign this proposal to the dustbin of history.

I am completely against this resolution it takes away my right to charge whatever I want.

I see this resolution simply as a step in the right direction towards equality to all peoples this is not an "insane" resolution merely a left wing one.
Of course this may require further resolutions in order to regulate it.

The Nation of Matalonia joins with all other nations that have thusfar condemned this proposal. It is sheer madness to ask a government to allow large, potentially powerful, unregulated organizations to form within it's borders. Furthermore, this resolution allows for unions to form international confederacies, which would exist without any control but their own. I, for one, will allow no such organization to exist within my nation. The possibility for such groups to flount local authority and even engage in subversive acts is only too clear. Vote no on the rights of Labor Unions!

In my original posts, which I've since edited, 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.

But it's too late to make such changes. Had the creator of this resolution allowed more room for discussion prior to putting up this resolution, I would not have had this much casue to complain.

Aquilogna et al.,

There was plenty of discussion before they put up this resolution:

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 you all read these two threads fully as soon as possible, in case they should try to hide them from all of you. Doing so will demonstrate that there is nothing incidental 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

The Holy Empire of Ustasha urges all free-thinking Capitalist nations (and everyone else, for that matter) to vote NO on this resolution. For too long our government and it's hard-working citizens had served under the Nazi Jackboot of opressive and corrupt unions. I, Emperor Jim, have solved this problem within my own nation by executing the leaders of all Ustashan Unions. But since this is the UN, and I can not execute the leaders of other countries' Unions, I urge you to vote against the Communists and Socialsts who support this insane resolution.

And here Free Soviets explicitly declare their intentions:

Of course, if I thought it wouldn't kill any chance of passing i would include a preamble something along the lines of,

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth..."(emphasis added)

Here again they mention the need to conceal their true intentions:


3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations both nationally and internationally, unless such activity amounts to contravention of federal law.

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure that adding that subclause is helpful. I think it gives too much away. I'm fairly sure that most people wouldn't interpret the original to give unions the right of sucession.(emphasis added. The phrase about contravention of federal law was added later, to make the poison pill easier to swallow.)

It's now clear why the resolution is vague on the question of making unions independent of national law - its purpose is to prepare for World Communism, and national governments are to be made subject to the unions, not the other way round.

Of course, we support the resolution, because we want to see the economies of all UN members plummet like a skydiver with a lead parachute. Will the techs finally invent an economic level lower than "imploded" to give the collectivists somewhere to go? Will UN governments use armed force to resist the Wobbly takeover? Will the Wobblies use captured nuclear weapons against local unions that resist amalgamation? Stay tuned for further amusement!

Erm, if we really wanted to control the world, tricking people with propaganda, we would have discussed it in a locked forum, ie. The White Room.

However, the origins of the resolution are not hidden. We want free speech and information freedom to exist in plentiful amounts.

THERE IS NOT A CONSPIRACY.

We would like to address some of the points made by the representative from Dinoponera.

They said that "Clause 2 forces governments to aid unions in striking." We would like to note that Clause 2 actually says only that governments must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability to strike or engage in other industrial actions. In most cases this will mainly require nations that have outlawed such actions to make them legal. Additionally they will have to prevent private businesses from engaging in anti-union activities that would be illegal if done to non-union entities. So no Pinkertons with machine guns.

They also said that "it encourages unions to strike for 60+ days by demanding that negotiators be supplied at the 60 day mark." On this we disagree most strongly. This is actually a compromise measure, created to make sure that strikes do not go on indefinitely. If your government thinks 60 days is too long, then by all means set up a system of unbiased mediation that kicks in after 30 days or a week.

Additionally they said that "Clause 4 prevents governments from insisting on democratic elections for unions. It also prevents union members from calling for judicial review of union decisions. This allows union leaders to run their organisations in an undemocratic manner without any recourse for disenfranchised members." Let us cut right to the point on this clause. In every case where governments have asserted the right to essentially run the unions and interfere with their internal processes, it has not been in the interests of democracy or worker rights and freedom. It has, without fail, been used to subvert unions and use them for political ends. At best it is used to make them entirely ineffective bodies. If the union members want more democratic unions than the ones they have, then they should form new ones or take the power back in their old ones. They should not, however, be ordered around by the national government.

And further they stated that "Clause 5 protects union-members against employers, but it does not protect non-union members against unions. This will lead to 'closed shop' situations, where a union demands that employees become members in order to remain employed." Actually, the proposal is silent on the issue of closed shops. Which means that it doesn't take a position one way or the other. Which means that the issue is left to the individual nations.

And finally, they claimed that Clauses 6 and 7 are contradictory. We have heard this complain numerous times, yet each time we are slightly baffled. How is it contradictory to say that unions must obey the law and at the same time your country's laws must conform to this resolution? This resolution creates certain obligations for governments to conform to - they cannot outlaw unions or strikes, etc. Clause 7 means whatever else the law says, the law cannot go against these things. Clause 6 says that unions have rights but that when they exercise those rights they are not above the law. You have to read it as a package and not as individual and separate units.

Nations have laws. These laws, no matter what they say, cannot contradict the rights and guarantees provided in the resolution. Unions are still bound by the rest of the laws though. So if you have a union engaging in unlawful actions that are not covered in this resolution, you should probably prosecute them over it.

We hope this clears things up and that you will vote in favor of this resolution.
AFoFS UN Council

Erm, if we really wanted to control the world, tricking people with propaganda, we would have discussed it in a locked forum, ie. The White Room.

However, the origins of the resolution are not hidden. We want free speech and information freedom to exist in plentiful amounts.
I doubt free speech had anything to do with this, in fact I willing to bet that you thought no one will come accross that discussion because I have a feeling it would have been in a locked forum if you knew someone would have gone to that forum and dug up that thread for everyone to see. Now you do realize that must of us will hold you guys to the free speech comment now that you have made it.

THERE IS NOT A CONSPIRACY.
Well you used a different board to discuss the proposal you guys have written down that you did intent to leave somethings vague and there that preample that goes along like this The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth..." which you guys decided to leave out since it would raise flags. Finally, if free speech is something that you embrace and you claim this isn't a conspiracy, why didn't it show up in the UN forum when your were discussing on the draft? Best on what I've seen there was a conspriacy and there is no point in denying that fact since the cat is out of the bag.

SATO members look at our forums all the time, especially Knootoss. If we wnated to hide it, it would be hidden. And, hey, badly phrased resolutions can be defeated for just a few words (see Equality for All).

They should not, however, be ordered around by the national government.

But see this is how clause 7 and 6 are contradictory, if the national government of a nation can't tell them what to do then doesn't leave the union outside of federal law?

Questions for the author.

Free Soviets you have conveniently dodged my criticism of Clause 4, instead generating a cloud of rhetoric in an attempt to draw attention away.

Clause 4 prevents any public body, even the judiciary from interfering in union affairs. So, if my nation passes a law forbiding sexual discrimination and a union decides to act in a sexually discriminatory manner, then there is nothing that can be done about it. If a union leader uses intimidation or fraud to be re-elected, there is nothing that can be done about it. If a union votes to prevent non-Union members from entering the workplace, there is nothing that can be done about it.

If the leadership of a union acts in concert with a foreign power against the democratically elected government of Dinoponera, we are left with no recourse (except to withdraw from the UN). If the union declares its independance as a free Soviet, there is nothing that can be done about it.

But I expect you know all this - this is the content which your organisation has been "studiously directing attention away from.."

FS: You can take over now. It's hard to address two topics at the same time.
DB.

And here Free Soviets explicitly declare their intentions:

Of course, if I thought it wouldn't kill any chance of passing i would include a preamble something along the lines of,

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth..."(emphasis added)

Our intentions are our intentions. However, our intentions are not what is important. We are unapologetically an anarchist nation, but the proposal before you is not an anarchist or even socialist one. Yes, it was created by anticapitalists of various kinds, but its language is taken almost entirely from the RL International Labor Organization (which you certainly saw when you went looking through our discussion). For those of you who don't know, the ILO is a part of the RL UN. So no more talk of this overstepping the bounds of the NS UN either.

If this proposal was anarchist or radically syndicalist in nature, we would have used that preamble (Shamelessly lifted from the RL Industrial Workers of the World, btw.) We also would not have included any measure that in any way would make unions have to compromise and act fairly towards the capitalists. But that proposal would not stand a chance in this world. So we collectively made one that might and that would still benefit the average people of the world.

This resolution is a fairly basic listing of labor rights and is based off of the work of the real life UN institution that sets international labor standards. It is not radical, in fact it conforms to just about any RL first world nation's treatment of labor unions.

Besides, you left out the best part of that little quote.

Of course, if I thought it wouldn't kill any chance of passing i would include a preamble something along the lines of,

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth..."

But for now, this anarchist is willing to compromise.

*sigh* But clause 4 says states 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. You have made it so that a government can't stop a union from enacting illegal laws into their constitution; nor can it stop them from electing any crackpot, felon or terrorist they feel like and to top it all off All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers. with the wording of clause 1 the government can't do anything about it. See it says collective representation it however does not say what a union can and cannot include in their demands.

Furthermore 3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally. This clause gives unions even more power because then they can establish head quarters in another country and use that countries laws to defend their actions if a government tries to move against them.

Free Soviets you have conveniently dodged my criticism of Clause 4, instead generating a cloud of rhetoric in an attempt to draw attention away.

Clause 4 prevents any public body, even the judiciary from interfering in union affairs. So, if my nation passes a law forbiding sexual discrimination and a union decides to act in a sexually discriminatory manner, then there is nothing that can be done about it. If a union leader uses intimidation or fraud to be re-elected, there is nothing that can be done about it. If a union votes to prevent non-Union members from entering the workplace, there is nothing that can be done about it.

All we have to say is that this doesn't appear to be an issue to the real life ILO, and that this makes me suspect that you are reading too much into it.

If the leadership of a union acts in concert with a foreign power against the democratically elected government of Dinoponera, we are left with no recourse (except to withdraw from the UN). If the union declares its independance as a free Soviet, there is nothing that can be done about it.

Eh, at that point it will come down to a fight between the two side. UN resolutions won't be of much use to either side at that point.
AFoFS UN Council

The Disputed Territories of New bruno, as the UN delegate from the Mighty Tasty Corndogs of Death, is ready to cast our votes against the resolution.

We are a new region, and are wondering if there are larger blocs with whom we can align.

*sigh* But clause 4 says states 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. You have made it so that a government can't stop a union from enacting illegal laws into their constitution; nor can it stop them from electing any crackpot, felon or terrorist they feel like and to top it all off

True, you cannot stop them from putting things that you consider illegal into their constitutions or into their plans. You can however, stop them when they do some actions that is illegal. They can elect a felon if they like. If that felon is still a wanted felon they can still be arrested when you catch them. Then they can lead the union from jail.

All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers. with the wording of clause 1 the government can't do anything about it. See it says collective representation it however does not say what a union can and cannot include in their demands.

They can demand anything they want. This will usually be better wages, better conditions, shorter hours, etc. But they could demand to be collectively proclaimed the Queen of England if they want. They don't have to get everything they demand. You can't make their demands for them and you can't say that their union doesn't exist and is not recognized as legitimate.

Furthermore 3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally. This clause gives unions even more power because then they can establish head quarters in another country and use that countries laws to defend their actions if a government tries to move against them.

They can establish their international headquarters wherever they like. But their actions on the ground have to comply with the laws of the nations they are physically in. A corporation doesn't get to pay a lower minimum wage than other enterprises in the area because they have their corporate headquarters in Malaysia. Same deal.
AFoFS UN Council

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

Where do you people see "police have no power at all over unions" in that clause? This clause specifically states a few areas where unions are to remain free from government control.
1. The writing of their constitutions and rules.
2. Electing their union representatives.
3. Organizing their administration and activities.
4. Formulating their programs.

All of these are planning and intellectual activities about how the union should be setup and what the union should try to do. If they decide to try to do something illegal, you get to stop them when they try it. But you do not get to have agents of the government running the union. This one seems like a no-brainer to us. if they are not free to draw up their own constitutions and rules and organize their own activities, then they are not independent entities; they are arms of the government. And we have seen how well that worked out (check the Soviet Union, Mussolini's Italy, etc).
AFoFS UN Council

With all due respect, the delegate from Free Soviets is obfuscating the point. Under no circumstances does Dendrys wish to concede future ability to regulate to a non-governmental organisation. We cannot anticipate what problems may arise through the simple process of human abuses of power. Therefore, we cannot conscion entitling groups -- and this applies as well to the churches, clans, library associations, clubs, professional associations, neighbourhood organisations, etc. who are not being represented by this resolution, a point Dendrys considers exclusive and unequalist -- to act independently, indefinitely.

The Community of Dendrys supports and encourages the formation of unions. But Dendrys also encourages, in fact demands, the liberty to pursue dynamic solutions to any form of inequality. This resolution does not give Dendrys the liberty to adapt to whatever situations arise should we give our unions such freedoms.

Our current, mildly socialist approach seems very beneficial to our nation's economy and civil liberties, but we are struggling with our political freedoms. This resolution proposes to cripple Dendrys' ability to pursue different possibilities to raise political freedom in our nation.

Therefore, on behalf of the workers of Dendrys and the many other kinds and groups of citizens therein, we must vote against this resolution.



Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

"The Commonwealth of Derminia is alarmed by this proposal which is nothing more than an attempt to supress the freedoms of our people.

Unions are dangerous. Joined together they can cause war, overthrow governments and cause threats to the security of the national economy.

Derminia wants this proposal stopped before it gets too far and is looking to closely align itself with other nations to squash the proposal in its tracks."

Prime Minister Kan-Tut
Commonwealth of Derminia

Where do you people see "police have no power at all over unions" in that clause? This clause specifically states a few areas where unions are to remain free from government control.
1. The writing of their constitutions and rules.
2. Electing their union representatives.
3. Organizing their administration and activities.
4. Formulating their programs.


Those areas are so vague as to cover all manner of things. What are 'activites' and more importantly what are not 'activites'? Is union-orgainised rioting an 'activity'? Is union-organised racketeering an 'activity'? Or union-organised intimidation of non-unionised work forces?

Define 'organising their administration'. Does this mean running their accounts? If so it prevents the police from intervening where allegations of fraud are made.

Define 'formulating their programs'. This could mean just about anything.

Our current, mildly socialist approach seems very beneficial to our nation's economy and civil liberties, but we are struggling with our political freedoms. This resolution proposes to cripple Dendrys' ability to pursue different possibilities to raise political freedom in our nation.

Therefore, on behalf of the workers of Dendrys and the many other kinds and groups of citizens therein, we must vote against this resolution.

Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

We hope that you will reconsider. Especially because making unions independent from top-down control by the state means increasing your nation's political freedom (though this may not actually be the case as far as game mechanics go, not sure what gets raised by social justice. this resolution definitely will not lower them though). Voting against puts you in the company of hardline capitalists, fascists, at least one guy who wants to own slaves, and the like.

The way to increase freedom is to allow people more control over their lives. This is the main purpose of labor unions - to give people more say in their working life. Unions are instruments of freedom.
AFoFS UN Council

This clause specifically states a few areas where unions are to remain free from government control.
1. The writing of their constitutions and rules.
2. Electing their union representatives.
3. Organizing their administration and activities.
4. Formulating their programs.

All of these are planning and intellectual activities about how the union should be setup and what the union should try to do. If they decide to try to do something illegal, you get to stop them when they try it. But you do not get to have agents of the government running the union. This one seems like a no-brainer to us. if they are not free to draw up their own constitutions and rules and organize their own activities, then they are not independent entities; they are arms of the government. And we have seen how well that worked out (check the Soviet Union, Mussolini's Italy, etc).
AFoFS UN Council

This Speaker would respectfully submit that in the mildly socialist Community of Dendrys, the only regulations pertaining to unions' intellectual activity are as follows:

1. Unions, like all other publically recognized entities able to collect and distribute funds, need to have a charter and bylaws establishing exactly who has control over what happens to what money, for the purposes of allowing investors or members protection for their investments and fair expectations for their input and benefits.
2. Elections, in unions as in all other organisations purporting to represent a class of citizens, shall comply with all applicable laws concerning equal treatment of candidates and voters, anti-fraud measures, and anti-discrimination measures.
3. Programs, in unions as in all other organisations who claim protection under the Dendrys constitution for free speech and other liberties, should not be set up in such a way as to violate the laws of Dendrys.

Why, therefore, should Dendrys desire a resolution to be passed to enforce the liberties we already grant? In order to see those liberties given to others? Dendrys is not so short-sighted as to believe that our particular pattern for liberty is the only one that functions.

There are already resolutions in place to protect the health and welfare of UN member nations' citizens. This resolution, while evidently made with the best interests of workers at heart, goes too far in restricting a government's ability to adapt to its people's needs.



Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees.

Unions are ebil on a scale greater then all the crime in history.

Why should i let a group of criminals tell me that i have to pay a punk that i cant fire who wont work?

Why should i pay some one who has not gone to school as the same as some one who has?

Who are u to tell me who i have to keep or promote in a job when u dont own the company or in this case country?

I could go on and on Unions do serve a useful function (To line the pockets of those in charge of the unions)

Unions = ebil :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Where do you people see "police have no power at all over unions" in that clause? This clause specifically states a few areas where unions are to remain free from government control.
1. The writing of their constitutions and rules.
2. Electing their union representatives.
3. Organizing their administration and activities.
4. Formulating their programs.


Those areas are so vague as to cover all manner of things. What are 'activites' and more importantly what are not 'activites'? Is union-orgainised rioting an 'activity'? Is union-organised racketeering an 'activity'? Or union-organised intimidation of non-unionised work forces?

Define 'organising their administration'. Does this mean running their accounts? If so it prevents the police from intervening where allegations of fraud are made.

Define 'formulating their programs'. This could mean just about anything.

It doesn't matter though. Let's say that for some reason we decide that planning union-organized rioting is a protected activity. That still doesn't make rioting legal. Is fraud illegal in your country? Then catch them doing it - probably through taxes.

When unions do some activity, they are no longer planning or organizing or formulating. They are engaged in activities. If these activities are illegal then they are still illegal, even for union members. This resolution specifically protects only a few activities, beyond that it is left to the national governments.
AFoFS UN Council

We hope that you will reconsider. Especially because making unions independent from top-down control by the state means increasing your nation's political freedom (though this may not actually be the case as far as game mechanics go, not sure what gets raised by social justice. this resolution definitely will not lower them though). Voting against puts you in the company of hardline capitalists, fascists, at least one guy who wants to own slaves, and the like.

The way to increase freedom is to allow people more control over their lives. This is the main purpose of labor unions - to give people more say in their working life. Unions are instruments of freedom.
AFoFS UN Council

We are in wholehearted agreement that unions can be used as instruments of freedom. We are not in wholehearted agreement that enforced freedoms for a union will result in such inevitable freedoms that Dendrys will never need to make laws or fund public organisations to help keep unions active on behalf of the workers, rather than active in their own interests. Dendrys cannot anticipate how events would proceed if unions had such liberties, but Dendrys does not want to rescind the right to conduct (ex. grat.) public investigations of which unions best represent homosexual workers' interests, which unions are most likely to help union members in personal financial crises, which unions have the best plan to ensure that workers receive adequate health care, etc. Dendrys further does not want to rescind the right to make laws forbidding (ex. grat.) the president of a corporation from becoming the president of its union.

We hold our position against. We admire the conviction of the speaker for the Free Soviets, and we appreciate the speaker's arguments, but we believe we have a functioning formula for protecting our proletariat -- and that is to remain flexible. "The tree that bends does not break; but the tree that is rigid, though its roots run ever so deep, will be washed away in the flood."

Respectfully,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

The way to increase freedom is to allow people more control over their lives. This is the main purpose of labor unions - to give people more say in their working life. Unions are instruments of freedom.
AFoFS UN Council

Freedom? Um, excuse me, but aren't you a freaking Anarchist? Anarchy has nothing to do with freedom. Anarchy is about chaos. A constitution grants freedoms. A bill of rights grants freedoms. Anarchy has niether. Anarchy is the absence of a government, and government-sanctioned organizations such as Unions. I find you Resolution highly hippocritical.

Have you ever studied a country in a state of anarchy? I've done extensive studying on two: Somolia and Sierra Leone. Both were in a state of anarchy during the 1990's. Warlords ruled. People with guns ruled. Regular citizens were raped, tortured, and killed, because there was no government to stop any of it. If you wanted something someone else had, you killed them in order to get it, or died trying. And there were no companies or jobs to speak of. Unions? F**king forget it.

You see, Anarchists, like Nihilists, are incapable of creating anything. Maybe it's because they're too stupid, or too incompetent, or too angry, or just high all the time. Or maybe the choose not to create. But either way, because they can not create, they are compelled to destroy what others have created. Governments. Institutions. Corporations. Organizations. Economies. Alliances. Federations. Laws. So, the fact that an anarchist proposes a resolution on the protection of Unions make no sense. The vast majority of anarchists don't even have jobs, so how the hell would they even benefit from a freaking union?

My guess: they're trying to piss off "The Capitalists", that ominpresent entity that anarchists seem to hate, but actually contribute to every time they buy a pair of shoes, or a bong, or cigarrettes, or a skateboard, or a tofu burger, or a Good Charolette T-shirt. If you've ever bought ANYTHING, EVER, in ANY COUNTRY, congratulations, you've just contributed to capitalism. And if you've held a job, and actually MADE money, EVER, you're a god damn Super Freaking Mega Huge Capitalist!

Congratulations, you hippocrites.

HERE HERE Ustasha. my sentiments exactly.

In order to give our people freedom, our nations governments must have the freedom to legislate for themselves. If not, we will turn into mindless UN drones like France. :evil: :!: :!:

We must have a widespread campaign to vote down this resolution. Please help me in my efforts.

HERE HERE Ustasha. my sentiments exactly.

In order to give our people freedom, our nations governments must have the freedom to legislate for themselves. If not, we will turn into mindless UN drones like France. :evil: :!: :!:

We must have a widespread campaign to vote down this resolution. Please help me in my efforts.

Thank you for your support. :) Unfortunatley I fear it will pass, because the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists are all voting for it like the sheep they are. :roll:

Even more ironic: Unions were banned in Soviet Russia, and there are HEAVY restrictions on Unions in present-day Communist China. :!: To top it all off, no unions have ever been formed in Cuba or Vietnam. There's no laws preventing it, but people are too busy being poor to form an actual Union. :?

This resolution is 80% Communism, 19% Hypocrisy, 1% filler.

Even more ironic: Unions were banned in Soviet Russia, and there are HEAVY restrictions on Unions in present-day Communist China. :!: To top it all off, no unions have ever been formed in Cuba or Vietnam. There's no laws preventing it, but people are too busy being poor to form an actual Union. :?

More specifically, the unions that did/do exist in any of those state capitalist nations (or the soviets in the case of the USSR) were completely dominated and run by the central government. See Clause 4 of this resolution for a safegaurd against that.
AFoFS UN Council

The Commonwealth of Billthecat is a small, peaceful nation which has only recently gained its independence. We do not have a rich and complex history such as many of the more established nations in the United Nations. Consequently, we also do not have a complex, comprehensive system of laws in place- you simply cannot enact laws to cover all unforseen circumstances. Our law book is more of a law pamphlet.

It is for this very reason that Billthecat is not comfortable with the current proposal. The proposal assumes that the UN member nations have all the necessary laws in place to deal with unethical or dangerous actions by corrupt union leaders. The way that it is worded, unless you have the laws in place AT THIS VERY MOMENT for dealing with corrupt power hungry union leaders, a nation will be POWERLESS to enact new laws once the resolution has passed.

Would the Free Soviets advise us to enact a whole slate of massive new laws in anticipation of this proposal, so that our country will not be crushed under the heels of tyrannical union leaders?

Please understand, the government of Billthecat does not oppose uions. Nor do they promote them. However, we VERY seriously question proposals which would threaten the very EXISTENCE of our peaceful way of life.

Additionally, to say that the unions must "respect" a nations laws is decidedly NOT the same as "obeying" a country's laws.

If the intention of this proposal is to safeguard the rights of workers in fascist regime, then Billthecat wholeheartedly supports the spirit of the proposal. Unfortunately, there is too much ambiguity.

Somebody suggested earlier to "pass the proposal and work out the bugs once it is passed with additional resolutions." This is a singularly foolhardy approach! It is all too easy to quash future resolutions pertaining to the clarification of the Unions Rights proposal. We fear that if the proposal is passed in its current form, it will NEVER be fixed.

It is better to defeat this proposal, and resubmit later with proper safeguards in place than to pass it as it is.

Therefore the Commonwealth of Billthecat votes NAY on this proposal.

The Commonwealth of Billthecat is a small, peaceful nation which has only recently gained its independence. We do not have a rich and complex history such as many of the more established nations in the United Nations. Consequently, we also do not have a complex, comprehensive system of laws in place- you simply cannot enact laws to cover all unforseen circumstances. Our law book is more of a law pamphlet.

It is for this very reason that Billthecat is not comfortable with the current proposal. The proposal assumes that the UN member nations have all the necessary laws in place to deal with unethical or dangerous actions by corrupt union leaders. The way that it is worded, unless you have the laws in place AT THIS VERY MOMENT for dealing with corrupt power hungry union leaders, a nation will be POWERLESS to enact new laws once the resolution has passed.

Would the Free Soviets advise us to enact a whole slate of massive new laws in anticipation of this proposal, so that our country will not be crushed under the heels of tyrannical union leaders?

Please understand, the government of Billthecat does not oppose uions. Nor do they promote them. However, we VERY seriously question proposals which would threaten the very EXISTENCE of our peaceful way of life.

Additionally, to say that the unions must "respect" a nations laws is decidedly NOT the same as "obeying" a country's laws.

If the intention of this proposal is to safeguard the rights of workers in fascist regime, then Billthecat wholeheartedly supports the spirit of the proposal. Unfortunately, there is too much ambiguity.

Somebody suggested earlier to "pass the proposal and work out the bugs once it is passed with additional resolutions." This is a singularly foolhardy approach! It is all too easy to quash future resolutions pertaining to the clarification of the Unions Rights proposal. We fear that if the proposal is passed in its current form, it will NEVER be fixed.

It is better to defeat this proposal, and resubmit later with proper safeguards in place than to pass it as it is.

Therefore the Commonwealth of Billthecat votes NAY on this proposal.

Just check out the law library at the Bloom County Courthouse, Bill; they shoudl have all the law books you're looking for. :wink:

The vast majority of anarchists don't even have jobs, so how the hell would they even benefit from a freaking union?

The vast majority of anarchists have been and are union members. In europe they have their own unions in addition to participating in others. In Spain, at it's height the anarcho-syndicalist CNT had around 2,000,000 members and was pretty much running much of Spain. The CNT still exists - actually, about 5 CNTs still exist. In the US anarchists have been heavily involved in the union movement from its origins. Anarchists were hung by the state over the 8 hour day in the late 1800s. They still are involved, often as organizers and campaigners. Just recently there have been a number of specifically anarchist unionization projects. Why don't you drop the mindless slander, or at the very least get to know what we actually stand for? Try http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html for a good start.

I am totally opposed to this resolution. The labor unions will strangle the government and continually extort concessions. This in turn will inflate prices and destroy the economy. VOTE NO!!!

Collaboration:

You would think that to be the case, but it turns out to not be of much use to consult the Univesity of Billthecat Law library. You see, most of our laws enacted to date have to do with sexual harassment, public drunkenness, acts of public waterfowl lewdness, and flagrant tampering with the space-time continuum.

Not much pertaining to labor unions, I am afraid.

I am totally opposed to this resolution. The labor unions will strangle the government and continually extort concessions. This in turn will inflate prices and destroy the economy. VOTE NO!!!

It is funny how far at odds this is with the historical reality of labor unions and economies. Back to RL again; the countries with strong economies all already have unions, had unions while they developed said economies, and pretty much already respect labor standards based on the same documents by the International Labor Organization that this resolution is based on. If you want to claim that the US has been destroyed by the labor movement, we'd like to see that argued a bit more convincingly that just shouting in the halls of the UN.

The Commonwealth of Billthecat is a small, peaceful nation which has only recently gained its independence. We do not have a rich and complex history such as many of the more established nations in the United Nations. Consequently, we also do not have a complex, comprehensive system of laws in place- you simply cannot enact laws to cover all unforseen circumstances. Our law book is more of a law pamphlet.

It is for this very reason that Billthecat is not comfortable with the current proposal. The proposal assumes that the UN member nations have all the necessary laws in place to deal with unethical or dangerous actions by corrupt union leaders. The way that it is worded, unless you have the laws in place AT THIS VERY MOMENT for dealing with corrupt power hungry union leaders, a nation will be POWERLESS to enact new laws once the resolution has passed.

This resolution says no such thing. You can enact all the laws you want at any time - provided they do not outlaw unions, outlaw industrial actions by unions, outlaw federations of unions, cause unions to be dominated and run by the government, or allow businesses to engage in anti-union discrimination.
AFoFS UN Council

The Commonwealth of Billthecat is a small, peaceful nation which has only recently gained its independence. We do not have a rich and complex history such as many of the more established nations in the United Nations. Consequently, we also do not have a complex, comprehensive system of laws in place- you simply cannot enact laws to cover all unforseen circumstances. Our law book is more of a law pamphlet.

It is for this very reason that Billthecat is not comfortable with the current proposal. The proposal assumes that the UN member nations have all the necessary laws in place to deal with unethical or dangerous actions by corrupt union leaders. The way that it is worded, unless you have the laws in place AT THIS VERY MOMENT for dealing with corrupt power hungry union leaders, a nation will be POWERLESS to enact new laws once the resolution has passed.

This resolution says no such thing. You can enact all the laws you want at any time - provided they do not outlaw unions, outlaw industrial actions by unions, outlaw federations of unions, cause unions to be dominated and run by the government, or allow businesses to engage in anti-union discrimination.
AFoFS UN Council

Well then maybe the proposal should SAY EXACTLY THAT. If it were stated explicitly HOW a nation would not interfere with labor unions, I would vote FOR the proposal. :?

I realize that in the framework of the proposal system, you cannot specifically adress all possible contingencies, you have to leave some of it as an assumption on the part of those nations passing the proposal. However, I do nto feel that in this case, enough care was given in the wording of the propsal to protect individual countries rights.

It would have been very easy to take the four lines of text at the end of your post, and include them instead of a very vaguely worded provision against obstructing the actions of unions.

As it is, I am not willing to gamble with the soveregnty of the Commonwealth of Billthecat in the face of corruption and foreign influence. :x

The vast majority of anarchists have been and are union members. In europe they have their own unions in addition to participating in others. In Spain, at it's height the anarcho-syndicalist CNT had around 2,000,000 members and was pretty much running much of Spain. The CNT still exists - actually, about 5 CNTs still exist. In the US anarchists have been heavily involved in the union movement from its origins. Anarchists were hung by the state over the 8 hour day in the late 1800s. They still are involved, often as organizers and campaigners. Just recently there have been a number of specifically anarchist unionization projects. Why don't you drop the mindless slander, or at the very least get to know what we actually stand for?

I know what anarchy stands for. It is the absence of a govenment.

The Facts:

:!: No government means no jobs.

:!: No jobs means no unions.

:!: In a country consumed by anarchy, people would be more worried about getteng their hands on more drugs and guns, and avoiding being killed by competitors.

:!: Most anarchists where I grew up in Arizona did not have jobs. They were immature punks rebelling against their parents, getting high, skateboarding, breaking laws, and living a life without purpose. Once they sober up and realize that anarchy is pointless, they get jobs and just convert to Extremist Liberalism or Socialism, both ideologies that support Unions.

:!: I am not saying that you have no right to support unions, and I am not saying that unions should not be supported or are unworthy of support.

:!: What I am saying is that as an Anarchist state, your position to support Unions which require some form of government in order to exist and function is extremely hippocritical.

-Emperor Jim.

Some points from RL which are worth bearing in mind.

A couple of people mentioned France. Why? If you consider France to be a basket case of some kind, you can't blame this on the unions. France has the lowest trade union membership of any country in the European Union.

Some people think unions will wreck economies. I live in Ireland, which has undergone an economic transformation over the last 15 years - mainly due to the existence of social partnership arrangements between Government, unions, employers and representatives of various economic and social interest groups. The partnership arrangements have dealt with pay, taxation, social security, pensions, working hours, and a whole range of other issues. Ireland's social partnership has given a high degree of "investment certainty" to businesses, while improving the living standards of workers. More to the point, Ireland's laws governing industrial relations and unions are virtually identical to the provisions of the Free Soviets resolution.

Some people think unions are not for well-paid people. I am a well paid manager - and I have been an active trade unionist for over 20 years.

And several people are in a tizzy over the clause that says that Government may not interfere in a union when writing their rules, electing their representatives, running their activities and administration, or formulating programs. I fail to understand why. No-one would want Government to interfere in such matters in a business enterprise, or a sports club, or a religious body - unless the business/club/church were to break the law. There is no good reason why unions should be treated any differently.

Not for the first time in my adult life, I am watching as people lose their ability to think and argue rationally as soon as they see the words "trade union".

Salud.

I know what anarchy stands for. It is the absence of a govenment.

anarchism. different than the popular conception of anarchy. no rulers, not no rules. my nationstates nation is fairly close to anarchism, as far as the game allows - my taxes wouldn't be income taxes and they got a bit high recently due to what looked to be an impending invasion, but its pretty close.

we should take this to general though.

After reading through the debate here in the forum, I find myself thinking this resolution sounds like it would open up my nation to an international Mafia.

Powerful unions have long been the targets of organized crime syndicates. Although I do not wish to hypothesize that unions themselves form into crime rings, these rings do exist, And they tend to like finding methods of expansion.

Although I have nothing wrong with labor unions and feel that there is a place for them within most nations, the power which the larger unions show in many nations across the globe is something which I disagree with. Too often, unions perform unethical and illegal activities in the name of bettering the lives of their members. This resolution leaves me with the feeling that it will give these less ethical groups the ability to more easily avoid justice.

Kholodsk adds its support to the negatives on this issue. The wording of this resolution allows for no governmental regulation in any sense. This means that we cannot ensure unions are fair and equitable. If government cannot have any oversight, they could for exclusive organizations based on race, gender, ethniciy, sexual preference, etc. It would begin the collapse of civil rights and bring about a reign af anarchy as unions attacked essential businesses unchecked. While Kholodsk strongly believes in the rights of the people and workers to find equitable jobs with fair pay that do not completely alienate them from their labor, they cannot assemble into policy-setting groups without government oversight in some areas.

Kholodsk votes no.

And several people are in a tizzy over the clause that says that Government may not interfere in a union when writing their rules, electing their representatives, running their activities and administration, or formulating programs. I fail to understand why. No-one would want Government to interfere in such matters in a business enterprise, or a sports club, or a religious body - unless the business/club/church were to break the law. There is no good reason why unions should be treated any differently.

Not for the first time in my adult life, I am watching as people lose their ability to think and argue rationally as soon as they see the words "trade union".

Salud.

But governments do interfer in business and sporting enterprise. That is what laws are - state interferance. Business in RL is heavily regulated in my country. My own profession is particularly heavily regulated by government. Clause 4 in preventing government interferance is preventing the application of state laws to unions. So in other words the motion calls for unions to be given preferential rights to all other organisations within the state. No regulation to prevent fraudulent use of union finances, or the pilfering of union-managed pensions. No regulation to prevent union leaders from vote rigging. No regulation to prevent secondary picketing. No regulation at all.

Now it is no good Free Soviets and his supports saying 'well thats not what we meant when we wrote it'. It makes little difference, as it is what the resolution says that counts, not what its authors intended it to say.

Free Soviets, I'm not saying that the government should have agents in a Union, I'm just saying the the government needs the option to crack down and/or disband unions that do not show an interest for the working man. Also the internationalization of Union does not work since pays standards from countries very. I don't see why they need to be internationalized either, now I don't mind when Union reps for another country judge the work manship of the workers at a shop and help them determine if they are getting fair pay for what they do. Prehaps you and your supporters should vote done this proposal and pass something along the lines of this.

I. Nations shall allow people in the lower and middle classes to unionize to negotiate with there employers for a fairer pay for the work they do.
A. Unions shall do the following:
Obey the laws established by nation that the business is in. That Unions cannot create closed shops. That they will not disrupt the lives of others while striking. Unions that deal with transportation, education and medical needs will have to set up their strikes so that others are not inconvienced too much and that all serious medical emergencies get treated during a strike if they are a doctor.
B. Nations can not outlaw unions, however if the Union is found to be violating the laws of the land, the nation can remove its leaders and see if that will solve the problem. However, in the union continus to commit illegal acts then the state can have the union disbanded.
II. Employers with 25 or more employees or are part of business chain shall not deny the establishment of unions and must be willing to negotiate with them should a strike result.
III. Small businesses shall be judged by a case by case basis on whether they have to aknowledge a union since it would be pointless and inefficent to have a union of 5 people representing Bobby Joes Car Wash. :roll: Granted since you claim to be open to compromise you should have tried getting this proposal hammered out on the UN board or at least let others know that you were doing something like this and would like input on. By the way the reason I suggest you kill this bill if you are willing to make further compromises is because amendments to past resolutions never seem to be voted on.

On another thing I wouldn't call everyone who is opposed to your proposal a greedy capitalist or a McCarthyist. Some of use a niether, true most of us support capitalism but it ensures that businesses a workers stay competetive and most of us think communism is bad in practice but we aren't going to persecute communists as long as they don't force their views on us.

Powerful unions have long been the targets of organized crime syndicates.

[...]

Too often, unions perform unethical and illegal activities in the name of bettering the lives of their members.

Organised crime syndicates also target legitimate businesses - logically, governments should also regulate businesses when they are writing their articles of association, appointing senior executives, administering their affairs or devising business programmes. Do you agree?

What unethical or illegal things are done by unions that are not also done by companies? I see nothing in the resolution to stop governments from acting against unlawful activity by unions.

there are countrys that are being held hostage today by too powerfull unions. unions most definately have had a place in our society at diferent times in history. however, it should be a nations rights to regulate these unions within it own borders for it's own citizens protection. according to this proposal, unions would not be subject to anti-trust regulations. again to quote a most esteemed fellow member of the west pacific "these regulations appear to have been written by a sotned ANSWER member with a fouth grade level social studies class on the civil rights movment."

Perhaps I am just a bit naieve in believeing and trusting in the intelligence of the rest of the UN members, but how can an issue such as this have a three thousand vote lead?

If you look at provion 7 and then provision 4, it seems clear to me that this proposal leaves some very important aspects of nation's rights to be trampled.

Do countries not READ more than three lines into a proposal before voting???

We need to STOP this proposal, for the good of all!

I have requested that my regional delegate vote against this proposal, and urge you all to do the same!

Business in RL is heavily regulated in my country. My own profession is particularly heavily regulated by government. Clause 4 in preventing government interferance is preventing the application of state laws to unions.

So you cannot put together a business plan, or run your accounts, without the permission of the government? Unless you live in Cuba, I don't believe that for an instant. Come to think of it, I don't believe it even if you do live in Cuba.

Clause 4 does not prevent the application of the law to unions. It prevents interference by public authorities in certain operational functions of unions, provided that such activities are conducted lawfully (Clause 6).

In the same way, a company can perform its key business functions without interference by public authorities, provided it complies with the law. No difference.

Bill I doubt half the people in the UN read passed the proposal's title before voting. Grnated the lasted bill proved to be an exception but I think that was because others mobilized to stop it before it even came to be voted on but yeah I wish more people would read the whole proposal consider what affects it will have and then vote. Anyways all we can do right now is point out why its a bad proposal to people who haven't voted or have for voted Aye for and hope that that attracts enough opposition to defeat the proposal.

Unlike the previous resolutions, which wereindeed disasters waiting to happen, this resolution is perfectly acceptable. Provision 6 contains the necessary safeguards to protect nations and their citizens. Only laws specifically tageted to interfere with labor unions' organizational capacities are prevented: You can still stop labor unions from committing murder, treason, or fraud, so long as those laws weren't specifically created to interfere with union activity.

(In our interpretation of the resolution, each provision puts limiting factors on the provisions that come before it. This is a fairly standard way of interpreting laws.)

We in Gurthark support this resolution.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Then provision 6 is overruled by #7.

No, actually. Provision seven states that laws are not permissable when they contradict "the guarantees of the resolution." These guarantees do not include a right to murder, treason, or fraud, to name a few.

I'd say you should re-read this resolution carefully. The 6th Article is just an afterthought to appease some folks and nothing more.

That's very possible. I don't propose to analyze the intent of the resolution's drafters; it may well be bad, but the resolution itself is good...just as I'm quite convinced the intent of the drafters of "Equality for All" and "World Heritage List" were good, though the proposals themselves were bad.

Everything else in this proposal is geared towards reducing sovereignty.

We in Gurthark are not overly concerned with "sovreignity" and "the rights of nations." We care more about the rights of individuals.

An NGO has no right to act above the laws of the land, but it is clearly the intent of the creator of this topic to do such a thing.

Then he, or she, has failed. They have simply prohibited nations from outlawing specific types of activity; activity which we believe *should* be protected.

Had the intention been to respect the rights of states, then stronger language would have been used. At present, the economic system will be held hostage by Communists.
I'm not particularly inclined to equate trade unions with Communists. And I don't see how this will hold nations hostage to anybody. It's effectively nothing more than a guarantee of free association, an anti-discrimination clause, and the creation of the institution of a mediator to solve disputes.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

To the 'esteemed member of the west pacific' who wrote that this resolution "appears to have been written by a sotned ANSWER member with a fourth grade level social studies class..." we would like to once again point out that this resolution is taken nearly word for word from the International Labour Organization, a RL UN entity that establishes global labor standards. The conventions that this resolution is based on were written in 1948 and 1949. They have been ratified by over 100 real life countries. This resolution is essentially a summary of the highlights of those conventions.

So you cannot put together a business plan, or run your accounts, without the permission of the government? Unless you live in Cuba, I don't believe that for an instant. Come to think of it, I don't believe it even if you do live in Cuba.

No, but you do have to arrange your business according to corporate governance regulations. You do have to refrain from fraudulent use of figures when putting together a business plan which you plan to use to attract investors. You do have to run your accounts in accordance with government regulations.

That is 'government interferance', although it is government interferance which I personally am in favour of so long as it is measured and reasonable.

Clause 4 does not prevent the application of the law to unions. It prevents interference by public authorities in certain operational functions of unions, provided that such activities are conducted lawfully (Clause 6).

In the same way, a company can perform its key business functions without interference by public authorities, provided it complies with the law. No difference.

As I say, 'interferance' and the law are one and the same. If my government passed legislation demanding all union leaders belonged to the ruling party, you would rightly consider that to be unwarranted government interferance. However, it is no different to anti-fraud legislation applied to unions. Both are laws and both are 'interference'.

Secondly 'certain operational functions' is not what this bill provides for. It gives protection to all union 'activities', which could be just about anything. It also prevents government 'interference' (read - law enforcement/regulation) in all aspects of union administration, so any form of grand fraud, money laundering or embezzlement by union bosses would be unpreventable by governments under this proposal.

I DO NOT agree with this act at all. I don't want to be mean or anything, but Unions are corrupt and inefficient. All in all, they are quite bad for the economy.

OOC: If anyone knows California's situation because of Gray Davis's anti-business fluff would know what I mean about Unions having to much power.

IC: Businesses should have the right to operate how they please, if workers want better treatment and whatnot, they should work elsewhere. Union's should be allowed because (sorry again if this comes out as rude) many nation's like giving their workers rights over the government. This is fine, because it does not affect me how others feel.

I guess I'm rambling, but my point is that this is a topic the UN not have control over. How I do my business, moral, immoral, or whatever, is my business and noone elses. I love the UN, it's a great organization, but recently they have been pushing things to far and becoming too controlling over states.

Back to subject...
Unions fool the public and workers. It is very easy for outside power to sneek in and abuse union rights.

OOC: This is like how the mob and whatnot run American(real life) casinos...
OOC: For those of you in California: Unions are bad for the economy because of their random manditory strikes, many friends of mine are forced out of their jobs right now because Vons Employees went on strike with full Union support. Union's provide rights that are good for employees, but I don't think that they should have as much power as they have. There was a rule established that the Union never told their members: If store employees went on strike at one place, the others would lock their employees out. The Union workers never knew about it and still don't know about it. The Union is telling these locked out workers that the stores were just being evil doing this....

If any of you are confused about why Grocery Worker Union in California went on strike here is why: Our former Governor, Gray Davis, signed a bill shortly before he was kicked out of office that stated that all companies, big or small, have to pay for their workers health insurance. This drove many businesses out of California worsening the economy and destroying many businesses. Many store chains such as Vons could not afford to pay for ALL of the insurance so they tried to make a deal stating that the employees had to pay $5 a week(a small fraction) for the remainder of their insurance. Apparently this enraged the Union, despite the fact that 70% of the workers would have agrees to this....

This is obviously Union effort to sabatage grocery chains, and thats not the worst part. People in the union that work at other stores such as Stater Bros have to pay a decent chunk of their income for Vons workers to not work.

How can the Unions expect to get what they want by robbing the store chain of its profits...?

I DO NOT WANT TO BRING THESE ISSUES TO NationStates!!!

IC: I agree with employer rights and I will work to preserve that, I just don't think labor unions and whatnot should have as much power as they have. I will agree with this law if it doesnt give as much power to Unions... many times Unions act without thinking and against their own interest.

Please rethink voting FOR this resolution
BAD OMENS BAD OMENS!!!

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

Unlike the previous resolutions, which wereindeed disasters waiting to happen, this resolution is perfectly acceptable. Provision 6 contains the necessary safeguards to protect nations and their citizens. Only laws specifically tageted to interfere with labor unions' organizational capacities are prevented: You can still stop labor unions from committing murder, treason, or fraud, so long as those laws weren't specifically created to interfere with union activity.

(In our interpretation of the resolution, each provision puts limiting factors on the provisions that come before it. This is a fairly standard way of interpreting laws.)

We in Gurthark support this resolution.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Then provision 6 is overruled by #7.

No, actually. Provision seven states that laws are not permissable when they contradict "the guarantees of the resolution." These guarantees do not include a right to murder, treason, or fraud, to name a few.

I'd say you should re-read this resolution carefully. The 6th Article is just an afterthought to appease some folks and nothing more.

That's very possible. I don't propose to analyze the intent of the resolution's drafters; it may well be bad, but the resolution itself is good...just as I'm quite convinced the intent of the drafters of "Equality for All" and "World Heritage List" were good, though the proposals themselves were bad.

Everything else in this proposal is geared towards reducing sovereignty.

We in Gurthark are not overly concerned with "sovreignity" and "the rights of nations." We care more about the rights of individuals.

An NGO has no right to act above the laws of the land, but it is clearly the intent of the creator of this topic to do such a thing.

Then he, or she, has failed. They have simply prohibited nations from outlawing specific types of activity; activity which we believe *should* be protected.

Had the intention been to respect the rights of states, then stronger language would have been used. At present, the economic system will be held hostage by Communists.
I'm not particularly inclined to equate trade unions with Communists. And I don't see how this will hold nations hostage to anybody. It's effectively nothing more than a guarantee of free association, an anti-discrimination clause, and the creation of the institution of a mediator to solve disputes.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Did you ever even to bother think what are the intentions of the creator of this proposal or are you so naive? Not everyone is a saint in this world, and the sooner you open your eyes, the better off you'll be. Where am I equating unions with Communism? You might feel like this is good in your country, but don't try and impose this on the rest of us.

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

It's only entering this cycle because you won't open your eyes.

I don't propose to analyze the intent of the resolution's drafters; it may well be bad, but the resolution itself is good
Did you ever even to bother think what are the intentions of the creator of this proposal or are you so naive?
At present, the economic system will be held hostage by Communists.
Where am I equating unions with Communism?
you won't open your eyes.

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

It's only entering this cycle because you won't open your eyes.

'Scuse me, mate.:x Don't think you can wander onto this forum for a wet week and then tell me what my analytical skills are like.

I am well aware of what is involved in the proposal, and well aware of the positive economic and social impact of similar laws at national level where I live.

I've worked for 25 years, and been an active trade unionist for over 20. I have been president of one union, and I currently represent 600 people in my workplace.

I know my way around this subject because of hard work and tough experience, and I certainly don't rely on tabloid headlines and the opinions of talk radio jocks to inform my thinking.

How 'bout you? :evil:

Did you ever even to bother think what are the intentions of the creator of this proposal or are you so naive? Not everyone is a saint in this world, and the sooner you open your eyes, the better off you'll be.

*AHEM*

We say again, this resolution is taken nearly word for word from the International Labour Organization, a RL UN entity that establishes global labor standards. The conventions that this resolution is based on were written in 1948 and 1949. They have been ratified by over 100 real life countries. This resolution is essentially a summary of the highlights of those conventions.
AFoFS UN Council

I don't propose to analyze the intent of the resolution's drafters; it may well be bad, but the resolution itself is good
Did you ever even to bother think what are the intentions of the creator of this proposal or are you so naive?
At present, the economic system will be held hostage by Communists.
Where am I equating unions with Communism?
you won't open your eyes.

Your point being? The economic system will be held hostage by communists because that is who Free Soviets is and that is his agenda. Never did I equate unions with communism. Can you read? It is the intent of the creator of this proposal that is important. Where was there ever an opportunity to question the individual articles of this proposal before it was put to the vote? There is nothing good about this resolution. If you want to vote just for the modifiers, then go right ahead. I haven't got time to waste on kids who don't have the decency to debate, rather they throw quotes in my face.

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

It's only entering this cycle because you won't open your eyes.

'Scuse me, mate.:x Don't think you can wander onto this forum for a wet week and then tell me what my analytical skills are like.


I can because I can. :evil:

If you want to play the mountain, go right ahead.

Did you ever even to bother think what are the intentions of the creator of this proposal or are you so naive? Not everyone is a saint in this world, and the sooner you open your eyes, the better off you'll be.

*AHEM*

We say again, this resolution is taken nearly word for word from the International Labour Organization, a RL UN entity that establishes global labor standards. The conventions that this resolution is based on were written in 1948 and 1949. They have been ratified by over 100 real life countries. This resolution is essentially a summary of the highlights of those conventions.
AFoFS UN Council

Nearly word for word? Why the need to alter it? Do you have anything contemporary? And why the need to quote the same thing over and over again? You sound like United-Middle Earth.

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

It's only entering this cycle because you won't open your eyes.

'Scuse me, mate.:x Don't think you can wander onto this forum for a wet week and then tell me what my analytical skills are like.


I can because I can. :evil:

If you want to play the mountain, go right ahead.

Come back in a few years when you've earned money from something more substantial than a paper round, kiddo. :wink:

Your point being? The economic system will be held hostage by communists because that is who Free Soviets is and that is his agenda.
In what way does passing a proposal by a particular nation hold us hostage to that nation, or that nation's agenda?
It is the intent of the creator of this proposal that is important.
Why on earth? The *intent* doesn't affect our nations, just the actual proposal. By the way, I don't even buy your claim that Free Soviets had a nefarious intent with this proposal. We in Gurthark don't agree with all of Free Soviets' economic policies, but none of their behavior strikes us as particularly nefarious. The forum you so angrily pointed to, with the exception of one poster (*not* Free Soviets) who went on about "deception", suggested nothing more improper than toning down a bill to get a broader base of support. My point is just that, even if there *were* a hidden, evil agenda behind this proposal, it doesn't matter, because the proposal would fail to support that agenda.

Where was there ever an opportunity to question the individual articles of this proposal before it was put to the vote?
The proposal has been in the queue for several days, and before that was available as part of the proposals list.

There is nothing good about this resolution. If you want to vote just for the modifiers, then go right ahead.
There's much good about this resolution--it protects the rights of workers to organize. You've failed to show that there's anything bad about it.

I haven't got time to waste on kids who don't have the decency to debate, rather they throw quotes in my face.
I only throw quotes in peoples' faces when they appear to be contradicting themselves, or accuse me of not addressing a point that I have already addressed. And I'll thank you not to call me a "kid."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

If there are still some of you who have not had to make the choice on Labor Unions in your own nation then hear this!! I myself let the unions slide because I thought maybe it would improve the economy by providing better goods, I was wrong the labor unions only decided to strike and demand more and more from me when they did not deserve it. The only thing labor unions do is cause chaos in the buisiness world, and that is only locally, imagine if there was an international union. An international union could not be stopped by just one country but instead every country would have to appease the workers. It is a must that all of you realize the danger of having such a strong non-government org. free to do what they want, when they want, and where they want. Do not let this resolution pass, I should know I'm speaking from experience. :x

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

I agree with you that many individuals view labor unions as inherently evil. This fear is not rational, as any large institution will have its instances of corruption and abuse.

However, to use your phrasing in the context of MY concerns - what if the proposal proposed that nations would not be allowed to interfere in the activities of churches, or badminton clubs? I say that you would INDEED have people screaming at the top of their lungs.

To say that it is simply an anti-union bias is oversimplifying a wee bit. :)

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

It's only entering this cycle because you won't open your eyes.

'Scuse me, mate.:x Don't think you can wander onto this forum for a wet week and then tell me what my analytical skills are like.


I can because I can. :evil:

If you want to play the mountain, go right ahead.

Come back in a few years when you've earned money from something more substantial than a paper round, kiddo. :wink:

I hope you don't think you're all superior becuase you are in a Union, the bottom lone to this is that this is the UN, why does the UN need to force this on us?

My family has been large in politics for years, my father, mother and sitster are all political science majoys and I hope to be one as well. I'm not bragging about this, I'm stating the facts from professionals, my father and mother are both flaming liberals, my sister is fairly conservative, and I'm conservative to the core. We most always disagree on topics but when it comes to Unions we all agree. Union's are fine, they just have too much power.

Don't pretend like you're somthing you are not.... I support Aquilogna, she's got good ideas and you're not listening because you are to arrogant, ignorant, and hypocritical to listen to her/him.

However, to use your phrasing in the context of MY concerns - what if the proposal proposed that nations would not be allowed to interfere in the activities of churches, or badminton clubs? I say that you would INDEED have people screaming at the top of their lungs.

To say that it is simply an anti-union bias is oversimplifying a wee bit. :)

Let us put this to the direct analogy test.

(1 and 2 skipped because they are directly related to labor unions and would have to be significantly reworded to be about churches)

3. Churches shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of churches, both nationally and internationally.

4. Churches 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. Church-going people shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-religious 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 church-going people and their churches, 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.

We do not see anything wrong with this proposal at all...in fact, we may actually propose it.
AFoFS UN Council

I would oppose it for the same reasons that I oppose your current proposal. Whilst the Dominion of Dinoponera supports the rights of its citizens to engage freely in the worship of whatever, or whoever they choose, we are strongly opposed to any bill which would place religious organisations beyond the rule of law.

I would oppose it for the same reasons that I oppose your current proposal. Whilst the Dominion of Dinoponera supports the rights of its citizens to engage freely in the worship of whatever, or whoever they choose, we are strongly opposed to any bill which would place religious organisations beyond the rule of law.

and yet they are specifically not placed beyond the rule of law. they would be free to organize their churches without interference but their actions would be bound by the law. How exactly would you place churches under "the rule of law" differently than this proposal does? Would you demand that the state be allowed to draw up the charters for churches or at least have final say over them? Would you demand that the position of pope become elected by direct democracy or be directly picked by the state? Would the state have to oversee their potlucks and their fundraisers? Would the state set dogma for them?

We are still seriously baffled by this whole "beyond the rule of law" complaint. It seems to be based off of a sloppy reading of the first 16 words of clause 4 and then of clause 7, skipping all the parts that restrict the scope of the resolution down to a narrow and moderate position. Or maybe it is the product of extremely authoritarian minds.
AFoFS UN Council

However, to use your phrasing in the context of MY concerns - what if the proposal proposed that nations would not be allowed to interfere in the activities of churches, or badminton clubs? I say that you would INDEED have people screaming at the top of their lungs.

To say that it is simply an anti-union bias is oversimplifying a wee bit. :)

Let us put this to the direct analogy test.

(1 and 2 skipped because they are directly related to labor unions and would have to be significantly reworded to be about churches)

3. Churches shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of churches, both nationally and internationally.

4. Churches 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. Church-going people shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-religious 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 church-going people and their churches, 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.

We do not see anything wrong with this proposal at all...in fact, we may actually propose it.
AFoFS UN Council

Let me clarify my point- The problem that I have with the labor union proposal is that it lacks provision for dealing with rampantly corrupt or destructive union leaders or policies.

To use the church analogy - through history there have been countless groups that called themselves "religions" or "churches". They have had official activities and programs which included polygamy, discrimination, genocide, torture, murder, extortion, and interfering with the activities of sovereign states. The Mornmons in the 1800s, Jonestown, Charles Manson, the japanese subway nerve gas folks (sorry, the name escapes me), they all are religions or churches which NEEDED the intervention of the government, FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.

he way that the proposal is worded, it puts unions (or churches) on the same level as nations. YES, the unions have to respect (not "obey" but I'll let that slide) the laws of the nation, but it also reads such that the nation has to respect (obey) the laws of the Union!

If the proposal were configured so that the Unions were exactly one peg below the nation, I would not have a problem with it. Ultimately, I feel that the individual nation is resposible for the well being of its residents, and as such, should not be hobbled in dealing with (potentially) abusive organizations!

It is quite simple. Clause 4 does not define in any specific detail the areas which are immune to government interferrance. Nor does it specify what government interferance is. If government interferance does not include legislation, then the whole proposal can be legislated away by governments which have a mind to do so. If it does include laws, then Clause 6 (providing for government regulation of unions/churches by law) is overidden by Clause 7 (providing for the nulification of laws which contradict Clauses within the proposal). So either the proposal places the non-governmental organisations to which it is addressed beyond the reach of law, or the proposal is defunct. Either way, its a bad proposal.

It is quite simple. Clause 4 does not define in any specific detail the areas which are immune to government interferrance. Nor does it specify what government interferance is. If government interferance does not include legislation, then the whole proposal can be legislated away by governments which have a mind to do so. If it does include laws, then Clause 6 (providing for government regulation of unions/churches by law) is overidden by Clause 7 (providing for the nulification of laws which contradict Clauses within the proposal). So either the proposal places the non-governmental organisations to which it is addressed beyond the reach of law, or the proposal is defunct. Either way, its a bad proposal.

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

It's only entering this cycle because you won't open your eyes.

'Scuse me, mate.:x Don't think you can wander onto this forum for a wet week and then tell me what my analytical skills are like.


I can because I can. :evil:

If you want to play the mountain, go right ahead.

Come back in a few years when you've earned money from something more substantial than a paper round, kiddo. :wink:

Paper round, what's that? Oh wait, when I was that age(a long, long time ago) I had a pyramid scheme going and before that I was organizing kids in a grade below me into marching in unison - you can't play army without learning to march in step. Ah, the memories. :lol:

Your point being? The economic system will be held hostage by communists because that is who Free Soviets is and that is his agenda.
In what way does passing a proposal by a particular nation hold us hostage to that nation, or that nation's agenda?
It is the intent of the creator of this proposal that is important.
Why on earth? The *intent* doesn't affect our nations, just the actual proposal. By the way, I don't even buy your claim that Free Soviets had a nefarious intent with this proposal. We in Gurthark don't agree with all of Free Soviets' economic policies, but none of their behavior strikes us as particularly nefarious. The forum you so angrily pointed to, with the exception of one poster (*not* Free Soviets) who went on about "deception", suggested nothing more improper than toning down a bill to get a broader base of support. My point is just that, even if there *were* a hidden, evil agenda behind this proposal, it doesn't matter, because the proposal would fail to support that agenda.

Where was there ever an opportunity to question the individual articles of this proposal before it was put to the vote?
The proposal has been in the queue for several days, and before that was available as part of the proposals list.

There is nothing good about this resolution. If you want to vote just for the modifiers, then go right ahead.
There's much good about this resolution--it protects the rights of workers to organize. You've failed to show that there's anything bad about it.

I haven't got time to waste on kids who don't have the decency to debate, rather they throw quotes in my face.
I only throw quotes in peoples' faces when they appear to be contradicting themselves, or accuse me of not addressing a point that I have already addressed. And I'll thank you not to call me a "kid."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

What contradiction? I had not the time to look at this earlier on account of another stupid resolution: Equality For All. My attention was diverted into lobbying all over the place against this proposal.

At this point, the debate is entering into its "repeat cycle", and there's not a lot of point in my making the situation worse. I will confine myself to this point: if the proposal dealt with churches or badminton clubs, no-one would oppose it at all. But because it deals with unions, everybody gets their hackles raised.

Salud.

I agree with you that many individuals view labor unions as inherently evil. This fear is not rational, as any large institution will have its instances of corruption and abuse.

However, to use your phrasing in the context of MY concerns - what if the proposal proposed that nations would not be allowed to interfere in the activities of churches, or badminton clubs? I say that you would INDEED have people screaming at the top of their lungs.

To say that it is simply an anti-union bias is oversimplifying a wee bit. :)

I agree. As I've stated previously I'm not against labor unions, I'm against the wording of this proposal and the intentions of the its creator. Also the fact that there was no discussion of resolution's articles beforehand, is irritating.

The buisness is the property of the buisness owner, not the worker. The worker has the choice of working for the said buisness or going elsewere. In a free market thier is no need for unions as companys have to compete for quilified people. Therefore to stay in buisness w/qulity products services etc. the company;s will do things that attract good people. The only thing unions are good for is driving up company costs by causing worker strikes to squeeze more money, which in turn the employee ultimatley gives back anyway as a consumer who now has to pay higher prices at the store as the company has to charge more to maintain profit.

It is the Unamimous opinion of the Royal Family of SGWarning that the current resolution under consideration by the U.N. would represent a grave threat to the sovereignity of U.N. member nations. A nation and its leaders should have the power to control their own economy. The collective power of the workers within a nation is exercised in the voting booth under severly controlled conditions.
Some nations might protest that this removes the workers from a position of actual power. It is the constant opinion of the Royal Family Rulling Council of SGWarning that the farther the great unwashed masses are from actual power, the better. I ask the rulers of the nations of Wysteria, have you ever actually seen the people of your lands? They're ugly, they smell bad, they butcher our national language, basically they lack the capacity to rule themselves. Do not make the mistake of extending them that power!

Contessa Kiki Von Putz
Member of the Royal Family Ruling Council of SGWarning
Delegate to United Nations

Don't pretend like you're somthing you are not.... I support Aquilogna, she's got good ideas and you're not listening because you are to arrogant, ignorant, and hypocritical to listen to her/him.

I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. I have worked since 1979, and been a voluntary trade union activist since 1982. I am aware that unions do daft things and make mistakes, as do all bodies and institutions. I am also well aware of the behaviour of employers - both incompetent and malicious - that fully justifies the existence of strong trade unions.

I'm not arrogant, but I am proud to be a trade unionist and a social democrat.

I'm not ignorant - I am very well informed on the subject of industrial relations, as I have to be in order to effectively represent my members.

I'm not hypocritical, and I have said nothing in this debate or elsewhere on NS to suggest that I am. In the absence of any evidence of my hypocrisy, I'll leave it to you to explain why you think I am hypocritical.

My arguments have been presented in a reasoned and coherent way, are based on the experiences of my working life and are rooted in principles that I have developed and re-assessed over a long period of time. So you should appreciate that I would prefer not to have my extensive knowledge and understanding of this issue dismissed by someone telling me that I need to open my eyes.

....pyramid scheme....

Pyramids? I didn't realise you were THAT old! :mrgreen:

http://www.chabotspace.org/aboutus/press/gallery/images/pyramids.jpg

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1764_559458