NationStates Jolt Archive

In case you think there is anything vague about this resolution that you might assume is the resolution of poor wording, you should know that before they put up this resolution, they had plenty of planning discussion about it in the Anticapitalist Alliance region's forum:

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

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


Mephisto
Foreign Minister,
The Dominion of Beelze

I believe this has been pointed out numerous times but if this resolution is voted on then the UN will be stepping out of its bounds. The mandate of the UN is to promote peace and international cooperation not to be policing the private affairs of its member nations. Besides this will give corrupt dictatorships that control a union a chance to take over democratic and notso democratic nations without having to even go to war. The proposal gives unions more power than the states that they come from, and allows them to create international unions.

just another example of the far left attemting to hijack the un for their own nefeirios ideals
this is a clear example of an attemt to grossly trample on indevidual nations rights. we must stop them

Hi. I'm a CACE spokesman. It wasn't the ACA, it was us.

Now, the resolution was written to try to bring balance to the resolutions, seeing as the right were trying to ban all forms of socialism, etc.

Perhaps the honourable delegate for the Government of Demo-Bobylon could explain to us precisely which UN resolutions 'ban all forms of socialism'. If such a resolution exists the Government of the Dominion of Dinoponera is unaware of it (and certainly would not enforce it).

Demo-Babylon, even if the right were rying to do what you accuse them of (I wouldn't know since I haven't been keeping up with the proposals) your argument is still BS because none of those proposals were even getting enough support to be voted on. In fact everything that has been voted on passed in the last few months have had a leftist agenda.

Well, most people are leftist. Not that they call themselves that, but they follow common sense, reason, compassion, morality. What some may think is common sense, some may consider far leftism.

PS: Considered that happy, healthy workers are productive workers?

Hi. I'm a CACE spokesman. It wasn't the ACA, it was us.

Now, the resolution was written to try to bring balance to the resolutions, seeing as the right were trying to ban all forms of socialism, etc.
The ACA region appears to be part of this "CACE," which is why they link to it in their region description... And the starter of the two linked threads is Free Soviets, the author of resolution (and resident of the ACA). So your clarification is... well... irrelevant.

The resolution had nothing to do with balance... it had to do with deliberately misleading UN members who just vote without closely resolutions. You guys are counting on your intentionally vague and twisted language to keep things unclear... and, in those threads, have admitted that you intend to follow up on this resolution with other, similarly misleading ones, meant only to force your idealogies down the rest of our throats.

So spare us your feeble attempts to debate this issue. As you acknowledged in your most recent post at that other board, you're not up to the task. What I am referring to is the post at http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=521&st=15: where you posted:


OK, we need intelligent, non-flaming, persuasive masters of rhetoric (which excludes me) to look over the UN forum. Loads of thick McCarthyist noobs are screaming about evil commie-bolshy rubbish, and how they should oppress the people.

Edit: Er, guys, you listening. I'm not intelligent enough to keep the baying McCapitali$ts at bay.

I applaud my communist brethren in their attempts to make fools of the corrupt capitalists. Workers must unite and overthow these greedy sons of Enron.

Yes, I wrote that 4 minutes ago. I do not think, however, that it is particularly feeble. :cry:
*Waits for reinforcements*

PS: It's bObylon. Demo-Bobylon.

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.

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.

It seems the 'innocent' resolution has hidden fangs like a serpent.

I wonder if those who voted 'yes' for this resolution have seen this foul example of backroom dealing for nefarious purposes. :evil:

Many nations are working to lower the tax burden and help their economy. This resolution ties our hands.

Well, most people are leftist. Not that they call themselves that, but they follow common sense, reason, morality.

That's called capitalism, not "leftism".

compassion,
Compassion with what rightfully belongs to others (which is what leftists want) is called "evil".

Well, most people are leftist. Not that they call themselves that, but they follow common sense, reason, morality.

That's called capitalism, not "leftism".

compassion,
Compassion with what rightfully belongs to others (which is what leftists want) is called "evil".

How do you defend the slavery of sweatshops?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

How do you defend the slavery of sweatshops?

I cannot answer that question, since it assumes a false premise.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

How do you defend the slavery of sweatshops?

It isn't slavery, especially since:

- The workers consent
- Multinational corporate "sweatshops" on average aren't that sweaty. They also pay between two and three times as much as a person would be able to make on the local market. Which explains why so many people compete for sweatshop jobs.

Many nations are working to lower the tax burden and help their economy. This resolution ties our hands.

We do not see how. Cut taxes all you want. We usually do whenever we get the chance. This proposal doesn't force you to give the unions everything they want, it merely forces you to allow them to struggle for it without being sent to jail or shot at for the mere act of striking or forming a union.
AFoFS UN Council

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

This point really scares me, it hands ultimate power to the union, the union could do anything it damn well likes, this includes forming their own armed forces, and they can do this inside your country, and to make matters worse you cannot touch them.

Sorry but I am voting a big fat NO on this resoloution, it's seriously flawed.
And I would suggest everyone else spread the word to the other delegates and get them voting NO

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.

This point really scares me, it hands ultimate power to the union, the union could do anything it damn well likes, this includes forming their own armed forces, and they can do this inside your country, and to make matters worse you cannot touch them.

Sorry but I am voting a big fat NO on this resoloution, it's seriously flawed.
And I would suggest everyone else spread the word to the other delegates and get them voting NO

oh, is that what it says? and here i was thinking that it said that the government isn't allowed to interfere with unions creating their own constitutions, writing and passing their own internal rules, electing their own internal officials, organizing the day-to-day running of the union, and formulating union policy and campaigns.

i must have missed the part where it said "unions shall be totally untouchable by the state, and they are especially encouraged to form armed insurrectionist groups". i'm sure glad you pointed that part out to me.

This proposal doesn't force you to give the unions everything they want, it merely forces you to allow them to struggle for it without being sent to jail or shot at for the mere act of striking or forming a union.
It does more than that; it prevents employers from firing workers for union activity.
But that isn't the biggest problem with it; not even allowing unions to strangle economies is the biggest problem with it. The worst part of this resolution is that it creates a backdoor by which unions can be brought under the control of foreign nations or organizations, without any interference from national governments. Communist-controlled international unions can gain total control over every part of your economy, and you're not allowed to lift a finger to stop it.

This proposal doesn't force you to give the unions everything they want, it merely forces you to allow them to struggle for it without being sent to jail or shot at for the mere act of striking or forming a union.
It does more than that; it prevents employers from firing workers for union activity.
But that isn't the biggest problem with it; not even allowing unions to strangle economies is the biggest problem with it. The worst part of this resolution is that it creates a backdoor by which unions can be brought under the control of foreign nations or organizations, without any interference from national governments. Communist-controlled international unions can gain total control over every part of your economy, and you're not allowed to lift a finger to stop it.

And that was his intent all along. It only took me a few seconds to see that this resolution is a ploy to gain power.

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

The ACA region appears to be part of this "CACE," which is why they link to it in their region description... And the starter of the two linked threads is Free Soviets, the author of resolution (and resident of the ACA). So your clarification is... well... irrelevant.


for the record, the CACE and the ACA are not the same organisations, not is either a subsidiary of the other. The ACA merely shares the forums of the CACE because it is convenient to do so, and becasue the ACA is also home to around half of the CACE membership.

Whilst both organisations share common ideals, and to some extent a common membership, the CACE is an inter-regional organisation, and the CACE is body that formulated this proposal.


Moving on to the proposal itself, the fact that it is experienced opposition, albeit inneffectual, is hardly surprising as it appears that any move to curb the ability of employers to exploit their workers is unwelcome in some quarters.

To address the detail of the proposal, I offer the following:


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


This clause gives employees no other right than to organise themselves into a collective for the purpose of dealing with management. I can see no reason why anyone could reasonably object to it.


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


Clearly, there will be objections to this clause but it merely protects the right of the union to engage in industrial action (note that it does not specify what constitues industrial action, and thus leaves some room for interpretation). The 60 days clause is merely another protection of the right of the union to engage in industrial action, as without the ultimate threat of government involvement, any rights the union may have are meaningless.


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


No one shall infringe upon the right of the union to associate with other labour unions, organisations, or political parties. Why would anyone who was not operating a repressive dictatorship object to this clause?


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.


The strawman arguments presented in opposition to this clause are, frankly, unconvincing: if a nation's laws prohibit the raising of a private army, this clause does not undermine such a law. Suggestions otherwise are foolish.. The clause simply allows the union to organise it's own affairs as it sees fit, and without external interference.


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


You can't sack employees, or refuse to employ workers, just for being members of the union. If this protection did not exist the legislation would be meaningless.


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


This proposal is not a license to act lawlessly.


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.


Self explanitory - you can't undo the UN by passing contrary laws.


Any nation that purports to afford its citizens a decent degree of personal freedom should have no problem supporting this proposal.

Any nation that purports to afford its citizens a decent degree of personal freedom should have no problem supporting this proposal.

Upon first inspection, I thought so too. This proposal will throw a major monkey-wrench into the gears of fascist and oppressive nations, which the Commonwealth of Billthecat wholeheartedly supports.

However, After reading the forums, and asking a few questions, I feel that the proposal does indeed leave the door open to undue labor interference and super-legal status. Even in a country such as ours, where workers are well treated, there will inevitably be come a time where the power of given to labor leaders by this proposal will lead to corruption. THIS is what I fear, because once the infection of corruption sets in, the individual nations will be severely hampered in their ability to root it out.

Any nation that likes freedom will oppose this proposal because it grants special privileges to one group at the expense of the individual rights of another (see clause #5).

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


No one shall infringe upon the right of the union to associate with other labour unions, organisations, or political parties. Why would anyone who was not operating a repressive dictatorship object to this clause?


Speaking of which -

The Dominion of Beelze
"Resistance is Futile"
UN Category: Corporate Police State
Civil Rights: Few
Economy: Powerhouse
Political Freedoms: Outlawed

Please. That's one right-wing example of thousands. Just look at my nation!

"Civil Rights, some, Economy, very strong, Political Freedom, superb"

And I'm working on that first one.

Speaking of which -

The Dominion of Beelze
"Resistance is Futile"
UN Category: Corporate Police State
Civil Rights: Few
Economy: Powerhouse
Political Freedoms: Outlawed
Greetings Comrade Napolean (see my quoted passage below for more on that),

Well you incorrectly attributed a quote to me, first off... since I did not quote the line you put just below my name; but that's neither here nor there. But almost as irrelevant is whether or not we favor unions in our own nation. The difference, which you're failing to see (or, more likely, choosing not to) is that the Dominion of Beelze has made no attempt to impose our ideologies on the rest of the world.

And at such a time that we may, one day, choose to propose a resolution, we will not seek to insult the intelligence of the world community by trying to hide ulterior motives and attempts to promote our ideologies with the use of language that your compatriots themselves describe as "tricky." Beelze has never, and would never, presume to have the right to tell any other nation how they should govern. It is you and your fellow anti-capitalists who, despite all your arguments about freedom and liberty and rights, are seeking to take rights away from those whom you disagree with.

And finally, given your choice of namesake and how well known they were for allowing political freedom and civil liberties, my dear "Free Soviets," you would do well to tend more to your own glass house than be throwing stones our way.

In closing, I'll sure a quote with you. If you've read the book I'm quoting from, then you know it was not a capitalist society that was being described in Orwell's fable:


"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." - from Animal Farm, by George Orwell


Mephisto
Foreign Minister,
The Dominion of Beelze

Perhaps the honourable delegate for the Government of Demo-Bobylon could explain to us precisely which UN resolutions 'ban all forms of socialism'. If such a resolution exists the Government of the Dominion of Dinoponera is unaware of it (and certainly would not enforce it).

FAO Dinoponera Foreign Minister,

Sir,


IT apppears we meet again, not only do you have a poor grasp of nuclear deterence theory, but you misunderstand the relationship between the UN and the radical left.

Since we do not indorse the UN for its leftest content and anti-capitilist retoric I may be wrong on the following issues. But the Government of Imperlistic Prussia is never wrong. EVER.

How long did it take the UN to recognise Mao Zedong as the ruler of China and not Chang who wasn't on the mainland yet still held the UN seat for China? This shows some anti leftist feeling surly?

Furthermore, it clearly condems Noth Korea for pulling out of the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and condermmed the Government for allowing over 1million ppl to starve to death. THe same can be said of China, when during the Cultural Revolution people were forced to resort to cannibalismn.

It too has condemmed the lack of voter rights in China, the Former USSR, Cuba and N Korea again and again. It condemmed the "Red Terror" in Russia, and there was a tactile support for the "West" in the Cold Warin a rumber of resolutions.


Respectivly, Kaiser Matt the Ace, CiC Army Navy Airforce Special Forces, Chief Diplomat, Historian, and Policy Specialist . VC for the defeat of communism armed only with a board.....with a nail in it!!!

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


No one shall infringe upon the right of the union to associate with other labour unions, organisations, or political parties. Why would anyone who was not operating a repressive dictatorship object to this clause?


Speaking of which -

The Dominion of Beelze
"Resistance is Futile"
UN Category: Corporate Police State
Civil Rights: Few
Economy: Powerhouse
Political Freedoms: Outlawed


How about you perform the same analysis on me?

The Allied States of Carmarthen
"Fabricati Diem, Punc"
UN Category: Capitalist Paradise
Civil Rights: Good
Economy: Frightening
Political Freedoms: Excellent

Some of us who are offended by your resolution have not only stirling Economies but ensure that their Civil Rights and Freedoms are well maintained as well.

But then, using my Nation and ones like it as an example doesn't suit your obviously underhanded purpose nearly as well, does it?

Labor Unions have throughout history used violence and the destruction of property to achieve their goals. They intimidate non-union members (scabs aswell) and employers. This is never acceptable.

Furthermore, Unions artificially set their wages higher than what the market demands. This raises the prices for consumers, who are not union members. It also drives out those who are willing to do the same job for less money, creating unemployment.

Unions also use so called "collective bargaining" to better the situation of the Union Reps, not the members. People are always better off making their own decisions of employment rather than having their employment opportunities comprimised by a majority.

I wonder... one of the points just says "labour action" rather than defining the action.

If I define joining a union as a labour action...

*Grins mirthlessly*

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.

So let me get this straight...if a nation has any laws on the books that were there prior to this proposal even thought of, that are even somewhat anti-union, then if the proposal is passed, the nation can not enforce those laws?

Welcome to "Why we're voting no"

"A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." The current U.N. resolution sounds anti-capitalist. The statement I quoted implies the qoal is equal pay for all and increased government programs. Countries that have attempted this have actually decreased the standard of living for the average person. Taxes are raised for the government programs and the incentive for hard work and inovation, increased income, is taken away with the result being less available products and a decreasing quality of the ones that are available.

This resolution is not a call for unions but is a backdoor attempt at increasing socialism and possibly the establishment, over time, of communism. These lead to economic destuction and the lack of freedoms and democracy.

Please check the history and development of communism and totalitarian systems during the 20th century. I encourage all to vote against this resolution.

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.

So let me get this straight...if a nation has any laws on the books that were there prior to this proposal even thought of, that are even somewhat anti-union, then if the proposal is passed, the nation can not enforce those laws?

OOC:

Well it does sort of defeat the whole purpose of the UN, as implemented in NS, if you can overturn any resolution with national legislation. That's just the way the game works, and there's nothing unique about this resolution in that respect.

The only way you can get round this is by leaving the UN. It is not a valid objection to the current resolution - unless you object to the way the UN is implemented in NS.

Grin, if this are the counter arguments, then I am sooooo glad that this is all. In contrary to other proposals which where down right crappy written.

The only way you can get round this is by leaving the UN. It is not a valid objection to the current resolution - unless you object to the way the UN is implemented in NS.

OOC:
Many of us have done exactly that... which is, perhaps, why it keeps getting easier and easier to get idiotic resolutions voted through. The overhwelming majority of players barely even read past the title of a resolution before voting on it, I'd wager... The fact that so many delegates do change votes when they actually read a resolution serves as evidence enough of this. And the ones who are disgusted by all this just leave the UN, making it even easier for it to keep happening.

In the end, you're left with sheep and shepherds. But hey... that's how it is in RL, so why should it not be reflect in the game?

in response to my post right before itWelcome to "Why we're voting no"

Ahh...I see...too bad the proposal if passed can not be enforced. The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us.The U.N. does affect not domestic policy unless a people are in need of it except when countries are unable to solve their own domestic problems and it becomes a crisis.

In other words..the proposal clearly states that t a nation can not make any laws or enforce laws that are considered 'anti-union.' A union goes on strike? Ok, as long as they peacefully picket no problem. Oops! A person who wants to work and not deny their family income tries to cross the line. Now here's the situation. The striking union workers decide to block and even assult the person. Guess what...under the Proposal, the caops cant do anything. The Union strike goes into almost Riot mode after some non Union people try to help the assulted non-union person. Police still cant do anything per the Proposal. The Strikers firebomb their former employers (because it's their Union Constitutional Right) and of course, the police cant do anything.

At least that's what the Free Soviets or whoever submitted this thinks is going to happen...but it cant because the UN can not dictate to a nation what laws it can and can not have.

BTW, this is not the flaw I have mentioned in other posts about this topic. No no..I have found an interesting flaw and will keep that quiet unless this proposal gets passed and for some odd reason the UN decides to become a Dictatorship and ignore it's own policies and try to enforce it.

Unions suck.

In other words..the proposal clearly states that t a nation can not make any laws or enforce laws that are considered 'anti-union.'


Where does it say that? Do you mean the bit that says you can't pass a law to undo this, just as you can't pass a law to undo any UN resolution that is passed?

Or are you just making this up?

A union goes on strike? Ok, as long as they peacefully picket no problem. Oops! A person who wants to work and not deny their family income tries to cross the line. Now here's the situation. The striking union workers decide to block and even assult the person. Guess what...under the Proposal, the caops cant do anything. The Union strike goes into almost Riot mode after some non Union people try to help the assulted non-union person. Police still cant do anything per the Proposal. The Strikers firebomb their former employers (because it's their Union Constitutional Right) and of course, the police cant do anything.


Please quote a source for your poor reasoning in this example.

The proposal even states that:


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


It appears to be the typical tactic of most of the objectors to make wild and unsubstantiated claims about the resolution.

If you are going to make claims about it then say exactly how you have reached your conclusion.

In other words..the proposal clearly states that t a nation can not make any laws or enforce laws that are considered 'anti-union.'


Where does it say that? Do you mean the bit that says you can't pass a law to undo this, just as you can't pass a law to undo any UN resolution that is passed?

Or are you just making this up?

A union goes on strike? Ok, as long as they peacefully picket no problem. Oops! A person who wants to work and not deny their family income tries to cross the line. Now here's the situation. The striking union workers decide to block and even assult the person. Guess what...under the Proposal, the caops cant do anything. The Union strike goes into almost Riot mode after some non Union people try to help the assulted non-union person. Police still cant do anything per the Proposal. The Strikers firebomb their former employers (because it's their Union Constitutional Right) and of course, the police cant do anything.


Please quote a source for your poor reasoning in this example.

The proposal even states that:


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


It appears to be the typical tactic of most of the objectors to make wild and unsubstantiated claims about the resolution.

If you are going to make claims about it then say exactly how you have reached your conclusion.

I doubt that you would ever be swayed with any argument, no matter how it is put forth, as you are an ideologue: the hammer and sickle in your flag is more than enough to convince me as to where your loyalties lie.

I doubt that you would ever be swayed with any argument, no matter how it is put forth, as you are an ideologue: the hammer and sickle in your flag is more than enough to convince me as to where your loyalties lie.

Oh, come on. Honestly. You won't argue with him because he won't change his mind, especially since most of the points you lot come up with have been refuted loooooong before, but you just don't seem to get that and just repeat them over and over until I find myself sick of your petulant whining. Well, of course he is an"idealogue". He has certain political and economic views. So do you. So do I. So do most people on this planet. Stopping a debate because the other person doesn't share your views is the most petulant, childish thing I've ever seen in my entire life. Newsflash - That's what debate is all about. Trying to prove your opinion with reasoned logic and argument. Note: Claims of "The Evil Communist Plot (TM)" does not constitiute logic and reasoned debate. It smacks of people who seem to feel angry that their big CEO's might receive a little less money in their fat paycheck this year because they actually had to pay the unionised workers decent living wage. It breaks my heart, it really does... :roll:

If you are going to make claims about it then say exactly how you have reached your conclusion.
Ok kids, let's break down the proposal and I'll show where I got my conclusions and also why, that even though this proposal was passed into Resolution, the Republic of Necrotasia will not acknowledge it and the UN will not be able to take action against my nation even as I stay here as a member.

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

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. Thus can not tell a nation what it can and can not do in a legal sense.

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

Sorry..that violates the Right to Work Amendment (http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/csmith_fan/amendments.html) of my nation and can not be enforced. Also, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, sets out basic rights and freedoms to which all women and men are entitled — among them the right to life, liberty and nationality; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to work and to be educated; the right to food and housing; and the right to take part in government, therefore a 'strike' violates the 'right to work'. Even when a company attempts to get employees in from a non-union source, the striking union members make any and all efforts to stop the 'scab' from going into the business. Dont believe me? Go to the US when there is a major AFL/CIO strike somewhere and cross the picketline while saying outloud you are glad to get some work. Hope your insurance is paid up.

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

Carefully worded phrase to establish further control by power hungry egocentrics. Thus setting up for the next part...

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.

Electing representives? Hrm..so a know terrorist with Marxist views can now head the International Iron Workers Union I guess. Organizing activites? Such as a national, regiona or global strike? Wont happen in my nation.

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

Yet..Union people can attack non-union people croissing a picket line, harass non-union people workiong at Company Example where the Union is striking. Dont believe me? Again, see what to do in my answer to Section 2 above.

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

Again, union members striking are violating the UN's as well as other nations' Right To Work Acts/Laws/Amendments thus they violate the laws.

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.

Second part of this one clearly states (which you seem to have overlooked by your arrogance) that laws can not be enforced that contradict this outlandish and illegal resolution. Again, the United Nations can not dictate what laws it members deem as allowable and not allowable but can attempt to persuade said nation(s) to change their law(s).

If the pro-Union people have a problem with this, the please, by all means, do not take up the time of Members here with your trivial arguments and take your issue up with International Labour Organization, since unions, etc fall under their department and not the General Assembly's. Especially since the ILO formulates policies and programmes to improve working conditions and employment opportunities, and sets labour standards used by countries around the world, whereas, as we all have recently seen, the General Assmebly has their time taken up debating on whether or not drawn butter and lemons should be banned because to a nation of space lobsters, those are considered bio-weapons and whatever redundant proposal comes down the way.

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

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. Thus can not tell a nation what it can and can not do in a legal sense."

Yes it can - that is how the UN works in this game. In RL of course, it can't. In RL, agreements of a legally binding nature are freely entered into, or not, by any UN member. Consequently, they are also consensual and the products of long and extremely detailed negotioation processes. That would however be difficult to recreate in a game such as this.


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

Sorry..that violates the Right to Work Amendment of my nation and can not be enforced. Also, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, sets out basic rights and freedoms to which all women and men are entitled — among them the right to life, liberty and nationality; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to work and to be educated; the right to food and housing; and the right to take part in government, therefore a 'strike' violates the 'right to work'. Even when a company attempts to get employees in from a non-union source, the striking union members make any and all efforts to stop the 'scab' from going into the business. Dont believe me? Go to the US when there is a major AFL/CIO strike somewhere and cross the picketline while saying outloud you are glad to get some work. Hope your insurance is paid up."

Well, in essence the UN has just decided that the right to union action does not violate the right to work. It is debatable point, and that particular debate has now been settled.

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

Carefully worded phrase to establish further control by power hungry egocentrics. Thus setting up for the next part..."

Well, why shouldn't they have that right? Provided, of course, that you do not fundamentally regard unions as just "power hungry egocentrics".

"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.

Electing representives? Hrm..so a know terrorist with Marxist views can now head the International Iron Workers Union I guess. Organizing activites? Such as a national, regiona or global strike? Wont happen in my nation. "

Again, why should the government, in a democratic state, interfere with such things? If we accept unions as a natural part of a democratic society, the must also be independent.

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

Yet..Union people can attack non-union people croissing a picket line, harass non-union people workiong at Company Example where the Union is striking. Dont believe me? Again, see what to do in my answer to Section 2 above. "

Oh I do believe you. But without industrial action there are no effective unions.

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

Again, union members striking are violating the UN's as well as other nations' Right To Work Acts/Laws/Amendments thus they violate the laws. "

logically not correct . This resolution supersedes any existing law.

"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.

Second part of this one clearly states (which you seem to have overlooked by your arrogance) that laws can not be enforced that contradict this outlandish and illegal resolution. Again, the United Nations can not dictate what laws it members deem as allowable and not allowable but can attempt to persuade said nation(s) to change their law(s)."

See point 1. Personally, I would have preferred wording less strong than this, but then there is no opportunity for negotiating language, unfortunately.

And even in RL, the UN does have the possibility of of deciding on general and universally applicable principles that it is not the prerogative of the individual state to disregard at it's whim. It also has it within its power to impose sanctions of different kinds on non-compliance.


cheers

I doubt that you would ever be swayed with any argument, no matter how it is put forth, as you are an ideologue: the hammer and sickle in your flag is more than enough to convince me as to where your loyalties lie.

Oh, come on. Honestly. You won't argue with him because he won't change his mind, especially since most of the points you lot come up with have been refuted loooooong before, but you just don't seem to get that and just repeat them over and over until I find myself sick of your petulant whining. Well, of course he is an"idealogue". He has certain political and economic views. So do you. So do I. So do most people on this planet. Stopping a debate because the other person doesn't share your views is the most petulant, childish thing I've ever seen in my entire life. Newsflash - That's what debate is all about. Trying to prove your opinion with reasoned logic and argument. Note: Claims of "The Evil Communist Plot (TM)" does not constitiute logic and reasoned debate. It smacks of people who seem to feel angry that their big CEO's might receive a little less money in their fat paycheck this year because they actually had to pay the unionised workers decent living wage. It breaks my heart, it really does... :roll:

The points that were brought up were never refuted, they were ignored by your kind who responded with mockery on every occasion, that along with constantly quoting the same response. You just don't seem to get that and just repeat them over and over until I find myself sick of your petulant whining. Accusing other people of immaturity when you yourselves were never fully willing to give and take on a proposal that was never discussed on these boards prior to being put to the vote does not constitute a debate. And who's to say he was right and we were wrong as you put it. This only proves that you're an asinine loser.

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

Sorry..that violates the Right to Work Amendment of my nation and can not be enforced. Also, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, sets out basic rights and freedoms to which all women and men are entitled — among them the right to life, liberty and nationality; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to work and to be educated; the right to food and housing; and the right to take part in government, therefore a 'strike' violates the 'right to work'. Even when a company attempts to get employees in from a non-union source, the striking union members make any and all efforts to stop the 'scab' from going into the business. Dont believe me? Go to the US when there is a major AFL/CIO strike somewhere and cross the picketline while saying outloud you are glad to get some work. Hope your insurance is paid up."

Well, in essence the UN has just decided that the right to union action does not violate the right to work. It is debatable point, and that particular debate has now been settled.

Correction..it was decided almost a month ago. My country decided that overall, unions do more damage than good and this proposal shows it. I'll illustrate in a sec in an example below. Also, any country should think twice about sending union members into my nation. Something about
anti-terrorism, declaration of war, etc..

(OOC Yes I know...the game will keep giving me pro-union issues, etc..just keeping in character. ;) )

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


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

Electing representives? Hrm..so a know terrorist with Marxist views can now head the International Iron Workers Union I guess. Organizing activites? Such as a national, regiona or global strike? Wont happen in my nation. "

Again, why should the government, in a democratic state, interfere with such things? If we accept unions as a natural part of a democratic society, the must also be independent.

By your own statement you just :
a. proved that no one really reads things, they just skim over the content.
b. just approved any union to elect as it's head the leader of any rogue nation that the UN wishes wasnt here. Want an example? Try any one of them that have bio-weapons, viral-weapons and nukes. Now..if a union strikes and the government waves it's finger at it, the union can now NUKE a country..and the UN cant do anything about it.


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

Again, union members striking are violating the UN's as well as other nations' Right To Work Acts/Laws/Amendments thus they violate the laws. "

logically not correct . This resolution supersedes any existing law.
Not my nation's law. For any governing body outside our nation to tell us to, or in effect themselves, remove any portion of our Constitution, is considered a terrorist act (if by an organization) or act of war (by a nation) because the Constitution of my nation is paramount to it's existance and what the nation was built on. Our Right to Work Amendment (http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/csmith_fan/amendments.html) in no way followed 'slave labor' ideals as others stated but the opposite..giving every citizen the opportunity and right to work..whereas Unions dont. See the oppression? Not from my nation..

"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.

Second part of this one clearly states (which you seem to have overlooked by your arrogance) that laws can not be enforced that contradict this outlandish and illegal resolution. Again, the United Nations can not dictate what laws it members deem as allowable and not allowable but can attempt to persuade said nation(s) to change their law(s)."

See point 1. Personally, I would have preferred wording less strong than this, but then there is no opportunity for negotiating language, unfortunately.


Actually...the writer of this proposal specifically intended to use those words with no room for negotiation. Hence the earlier point about electing terrorists and heads of rogue nations as Union leaders. Also, union "mobs" can now be armed with bio-weapons and other various weapons outlawed. Also, striking union members can now act as however they want to..violate any and all alws simply because this proposal said they could and was passed. Yes, thank you very much for making the UN now useless.

"By your own statement you just :
a. proved that no one really reads things, they just skim over the content.
b. just approved any union to elect as it's head the leader of any rogue nation that the UN wishes wasnt here. Want an example? Try any one of them that have bio-weapons, viral-weapons and nukes. Now..if a union strikes and the government waves it's finger at it, the union can now NUKE a country..and the UN cant do anything about it."

a. And how did I prove that?
b. I am bemused - why this constant preoccupation with unions as vessels for terrorists? What in this resolution gives unions the right to arm? And what would compel you to define an organisation engaging in terrorist activity as a labor union?

"Not my nation's law. For any governing body outside our nation to tell us to, or in effect themselves, remove any portion of our Constitution, is considered a terrorist act (if by an organization) or act of war (by a nation) because the Constitution of my nation is paramount to it's existance and what the nation was built on."

Then why are you a voluntary member of an organisation that has the privilege to pass legislation in your country?

"Actually...the writer of this proposal specifically intended to use those words with no room for negotiation. Hence the earlier point about electing terrorists and heads of rogue nations as Union leaders. Also, union "mobs" can now be armed with bio-weapons and other various weapons outlawed. Also, striking union members can now act as however they want to..violate any and all alws simply because this proposal said they could and was passed. Yes, thank you very much for making the UN now useless."

Rather I would think the UN was useless if it lacked the power to give shape to the world. And did you forget this clause?: ""6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations."

Let me put it this way.

a. Union members engaging in or indirectly supporting terrorists in my country will be prosecuted, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
b. "mobs" arming themselves, whether union-based or not, will be dealt with firmly, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
c. Union members "violating any and all" will be prosecuted according to normal laws, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.


cheers

"By your own statement you just :
a. proved that no one really reads things, they just skim over the content.
b. just approved any union to elect as it's head the leader of any rogue nation that the UN wishes wasnt here. Want an example? Try any one of them that have bio-weapons, viral-weapons and nukes. Now..if a union strikes and the government waves it's finger at it, the union can now NUKE a country..and the UN cant do anything about it."

a. And how did I prove that?
b. I am bemused - why this constant preoccupation with unions as vessels for terrorists? What in this resolution gives unions the right to arm? And what would compel you to define an organisation engaging in terrorist activity as a labor union?

"Not my nation's law. For any governing body outside our nation to tell us to, or in effect themselves, remove any portion of our Constitution, is considered a terrorist act (if by an organization) or act of war (by a nation) because the Constitution of my nation is paramount to it's existance and what the nation was built on."

Then why are you a voluntary member of an organisation that has the privilege to pass legislation in your country?

"Actually...the writer of this proposal specifically intended to use those words with no room for negotiation. Hence the earlier point about electing terrorists and heads of rogue nations as Union leaders. Also, union "mobs" can now be armed with bio-weapons and other various weapons outlawed. Also, striking union members can now act as however they want to..violate any and all alws simply because this proposal said they could and was passed. Yes, thank you very much for making the UN now useless."

Rather I would think the UN was useless if it lacked the power to give shape to the world. And did you forget this clause?: ""6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations."

Let me put it this way.

a. Union members engaging in or indirectly supporting terrorists in my country will be prosecuted, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
b. "mobs" arming themselves, whether union-based or not, will be dealt with firmly, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
c. Union members "violating any and all" will be prosecuted according to normal laws, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.


cheers

Indeed, the opponents of this proposal (now legislation) have continually misrepresented it, either through malice or incompetence.

It affords unions few of they rights they claim, and it even contains its own checks and blances, as you highlighted.

I'm just glad I wasn't in the UN when this passed, it seems so darn stupid

Too bad I cant seem to find pictures to illustrate this, because obviously the education in your nation is very lacking...here's why (as well as answers to your "points"

"By your own statement you just :
a. proved that no one really reads things, they just skim over the content.
b. just approved any union to elect as it's head the leader of any rogue nation that the UN wishes wasnt here. Want an example? Try any one of them that have bio-weapons, viral-weapons and nukes. Now..if a union strikes and the government waves it's finger at it, the union can now NUKE a country..and the UN cant do anything about it."

a. And how did I prove that?

Because you didnt read the proposal, you just saw the pretty words and sentences. This you proved with your first reply to me and now again with the second.

b. I am bemused - why this constant preoccupation with unions as vessels for terrorists? What in this resolution gives unions the right to arm? And what would compel you to define an organisation engaging in terrorist activity as a labor union?

Ok, guess we need a civics lesson here. Sit back, turn off cell phones, PDAs, etc and pay attention...

Prior to this resolution, there were actually no problems with Unions. This proposal, though the overall 'assumed' (because only the writer of the actual proposal knows exactly what the intent was, not his allies, not his supporters) intent was to bring equality to workers worldwide, the badly worded (or purposely worded) proposal now has become a Pandora's box. The results, the world awaits. Why? Easy, you keep misdirecting like a true liberal and/or pseudo-socialist, but the fact that remains. That being that :
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.
Therefore, any non-UN nation, that blatently ignores 'resolutions' (bio-weapons, WMDs, etc) can now create a union, elect whoever to run it and thumb thier nose at International Law..all from the safety of their nation where your laws do not apply. If they want to unionize their army, guess what? They can now. Military personel are considered workers. They work hours, get paid, in some nations even taxes are applied to their pay. Thus soliders can be considered workers and can be formed by a rogue nation in that rogue nation. Now..the fun part ( :roll: ) Part 3 points out :
3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally
Simply : "You have an armed Union? I have an armed Union! Let's make an international version of our unions and demand equal pay for union members in our branch of business!"
It can be done and I bet it will be done.
BUT wait! People are reminded that :
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
Ok, the United Military Workers of Example-ainia (a psychotic dictatorship with ebola bombs) has followed the laws of it's nation when it organized..though the laws there are totally against all UN mandates. Of course no laws can be made to counter this because point 7 does in fact restrict point 6 to almost 100% contradiction.

"Not my nation's law. For any governing body outside our nation to tell us to, or in effect themselves, remove any portion of our Constitution, is considered a terrorist act (if by an organization) or act of war (by a nation) because the Constitution of my nation is paramount to it's existance and what the nation was built on."

Then why are you a voluntary member of an organisation that has the privilege to pass legislation in your country?

Because this proposal was illegal, and probably endorsed and ready to be ratified faster than any other proposal out there. No time for debate before it got to the floor for discussion, just bam its up, bam it's endorsed and off to vote. Also, given the wide scope of freedom this proposal gives to non-UN members, expect them to exploit the hell out of it..and the UN cant do anything about it because any laws that are anti-union are now null and void..and prior laws can not be enforced. Want to argue, again, scroll back up, read section TWO and see that no government has a say in the forming of a union. In other words, said union now has carte blanc to do whatever they want to and any existing laws can not be enforced against them. Want to go farther? I bet there's 1000s of lawyers out there in the world that would jump at the chance to sue a nation into bankruptcy..I'll explain further down when I point out there are no 'checks and balances' as you say there are.

"Actually...the writer of this proposal specifically intended to use those words with no room for negotiation. Hence the earlier point about electing terrorists and heads of rogue nations as Union leaders. Also, union "mobs" can now be armed with bio-weapons and other various weapons outlawed. Also, striking union members can now act as however they want to..violate any and all alws simply because this proposal said they could and was passed. Yes, thank you very much for making the UN now useless."

Rather I would think the UN was useless if it lacked the power to give shape to the world.
Giving rogue nations the ability to create armed unions and send them out into the world and into UN member states, uneffected by UN mandates and laws makes it useless. The comment about the UN shaping the world is moot because as stated by other member states, the UN is not longer run by a majority, just the outspoken minority that thinks they can pervert the UN to their own needs and whims. Before you even argue that the comment is wrong because the minority has the right to be heard, I'll say this, yes, to be heard, but the UN decides on proposals by voting and as pointed out by other nations, the voted that passed this proposal were not, in fact, a majority of votes.

And did you forget this clause?: ""6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations."

Let me put it this way.

a. Union members engaging in or indirectly supporting terrorists in my country will be prosecuted, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
Again, a non-UN nation can make a union and go into a UN nation and go against their laws (armed, tanks, etc) if the Union's constitution says it can (because the nation that it was formed in is NOT a UN member)

b. "mobs" arming themselves, whether union-based or not, will be dealt with firmly, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
Part 7 clearly states that nations can not enforce laws that are non-union. Example :
Police officer : Sir, you're under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon. Please turn around
Union Rep : Sorry officer, I'm the representive of the International Squeegee Makers Union. We set up shop here 3 weeks ago. I'm allowed a concealed weapon.
Police officer : Sir, I'm sorry but that's against our laws. Turn around
Union Rep : Oh? Sorry, UN Mandate states you cant enforce anti-union laws.
Police Officer : I'm not enforcing an anti-union law sir, now turn around reaches for pepper spray
Union Rep : Nope. Sorry. By the by, here's my lawyer, talk to him.
Lawyer : Hello, my client has the right to carry a concealed wepon per his union's constitution and saying he can not abide by his constitution is an anti-union act, also attempting to arrest him for said act and the threat of being pepper sprayed are also both in violation of the UN Mandate against anit-union laws being enforced because you are clearly violating my clients rights as a union rep. How much is your country's GNP again???

Again..see my response dealing with section 2 of the proposal. You're missing the point..purposely or otherwise.

c. Union members "violating any and all" will be prosecuted according to normal laws, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.
Again, see the above..any lawyer will be able to turn any action directed towards a union member into an anti-union action and could also slather it with words like 'hate crime' and 'international civil rights violations' and well, say good bye to your country's economy because it just got sued. Lawyers do this all the time and get lawsuits rendered in their favor all the time. Sway that jury and judge, point out flaws in the laws and how the accused is a victim. Wham bam thank-you ma'am, off to Cuba for rum and cigars and a couple of millions.

Checks and balances? Dont think so.
Misrepresentation? Only by those who support it.
Malice? Ok, I guess that's what someone elses opinion, that is different than your own is called by Socialist friendly nations these days.
Incompetence ? I wont stoop to that low of a level to even give the initial reply that I was thinking about. (in other words..I wont reply unless I want the UN Sec. Gen to send a strike team to my office)

Too bad I cant seem to find pictures to illustrate this, because obviously the education in your nation is very lacking...here's why (as well as answers to your "points"

Kristinuria wrote:
"By your own statement you just :
a. proved that no one really reads things, they just skim over the content.
b. just approved any union to elect as it's head the leader of any rogue nation that the UN wishes wasnt here. Want an example? Try any one of them that have bio-weapons, viral-weapons and nukes. Now..if a union strikes and the government waves it's finger at it, the union can now NUKE a country..and the UN cant do anything about it."

"a. And how did I prove that?


Because you didnt read the proposal, you just saw the pretty words and sentences. This you proved with your first reply to me and now again with the second. "

Hogwash. The fact I don't share your rather absurd and fanciful interpretations of it does not indicate that I am the one having problems understanding it.

"Quote:
b. I am bemused - why this constant preoccupation with unions as vessels for terrorists? What in this resolution gives unions the right to arm? And what would compel you to define an organisation engaging in terrorist activity as a labor union?


Ok, guess we need a civics lesson here. Sit back, turn off cell phones, PDAs, etc and pay attention...

Prior to this resolution, there were actually no problems with Unions. This proposal, though the overall 'assumed' (because only the writer of the actual proposal knows exactly what the intent was, not his allies, not his supporters) intent was to bring equality to workers worldwide, the badly worded (or purposely worded) proposal now has become a Pandora's box. The results, the world awaits. Why? Easy, you keep misdirecting like a true liberal and/or pseudo-socialist, but the fact that remains. That being that :
Quote:
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.

Therefore, any non-UN nation, that blatently ignores 'resolutions' (bio-weapons, WMDs, etc) can now create a union, elect whoever to run it and thumb thier nose at International Law..all from the safety of their nation where your laws do not apply. If they want to unionize their army, guess what? They can now. Military personel are considered workers. They work hours, get paid, in some nations even taxes are applied to their pay. Thus soliders can be considered workers and can be formed by a rogue nation in that rogue nation. Now..the fun part ( ) Part 3 points out : "

:lol: You call that a civic lesson? You don't get it, do you. The fact that a resolution gives certain rights to a union does not mean that anybody can call themselves a union and then proceed to do exactly what they like with impunity. An armed mob is an armed mob, not a union. A terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation, not a union. Regardless of what they call themselves.


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

Simply : "You have an armed Union? I have an armed Union! Let's make an international version of our unions and demand equal pay for union members in our branch of business!"
It can be done and I bet it will be done. "

Right. And 150 years of international organised labor without anything like this coming to pass means nothing. See also above point.


"BUT wait! People are reminded that :
Quote:
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.

Ok, the United Military Workers of Example-ainia (a psychotic dictatorship with ebola bombs) has followed the laws of it's nation when it organized..though the laws there are totally against all UN mandates. Of course no laws can be made to counter this because point 7 does in fact restrict point 6 to almost 100% contradiction."

Has it even occurred to you that Unions are subject to laws that do not specifically address Union rights? Such as legislation against bearing arms? The activities of Unions and Union members are still subject to regulations affecting ALL individuals and ALL non-state groups.

"a. Union members engaging in or indirectly supporting terrorists in my country will be prosecuted, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.

Again, a non-UN nation can make a union and go into a UN nation and go against their laws (armed, tanks, etc) if the Union's constitution says it can (because the nation that it was formed in is NOT a UN member)"

No they can't, because I am not prepared to let them operate in my country, and nor do I recognize them as a union.

"Quote:
b. "mobs" arming themselves, whether union-based or not, will be dealt with firmly, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.

Part 7 clearly states that nations can not enforce laws that are non-union."

Thet are not anti-union. They concern all citizens equally.


"Again..see my response dealing with section 2 of the proposal. You're missing the point..purposely or otherwise."

I am not missing the point. I simply believe what you believe to be the point to be ridiculous.

"Quote:
c. Union members "violating any and all" will be prosecuted according to normal laws, and I see nothing in this resolution to hinder that.

Again, see the above..any lawyer will be able to turn any action directed towards a union member into an anti-union action and could also slather it with words like 'hate crime' and 'international civil rights violations' and well, say good bye to your country's economy because it just got sued. Lawyers do this all the time and get lawsuits rendered in their favor all the time. Sway that jury and judge, point out flaws in the laws and how the accused is a victim. Wham bam thank-you ma'am, off to Cuba for rum and cigars and a couple of millions."

Not in my country they won't. We are proceeding on a basis of expecting our legal system to retain a modicum of sense rather than become a haven for lawsuit surfers, and have every intention of keeping it that way.

Again - and how hard can this be to understand? The resolution generally simply expresses rights THAT ARE IN FUNCTION AND HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES IN VIRTUALLY EVERY DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
Which makes your wild predictions little more than paranoia, quite frankly.