NationStates Jolt Archive

The Confederacy of No Stinking Taxes (CoNST) is finding that while it often agrees with some of the intent of recent UN proposals, it generally disagrees with the resolutions themselves. We find ourselves in this position yet again with the current resolution concerning unions.

We fiercely protect the right of our unions to exist and to fight for the rights of our workers. However, we are equally fierce in defending our sovereignty and feel that the UN has no business in dictating how we should deal with our unions.

We call for all nations who feel at all uncomfortable about intrusive resolutions such as this -- even if they generally support the stated intention of the resolution -- to vote NO and to band together to get the UN back on track.

]The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

sovereignty seems like a pretty weak point to make in a voluntary organization whose stated and only purpose is to pass laws binding on all member nations. If you would generally support this resolution for your own people, why not support it for other nations' people?

sovereignty seems like a pretty weak point to make in a voluntary organization whose stated and only purpose is to pass laws binding on all member nations. If you would generally support this resolution for your own people, why not support it for other nations' people?

Maybe he respects the rights of other nations to govern their own people?

...

Maybe he respects the rights of other nations to govern their own people?

aye, but here's the rub. the un cannot do anything except infringe on the "rights of other nations to govern their own people". there is nothing else it can do and everything it does will infringe on said 'right'. seriously, if you submit a proposal you have a menu of areas to affect. whatever you choose, if your proposal becomes a resolution and the resolution passes, you have infringed on everybody else's nation and national government structure. you can outlaw gambling for everybody. you can increase political freedom. you can decrease it. you cannot avoid affecting every un member when your resolution passes. which is why if you are that concerned about sovereignty you don't belong in the un.

You're probably right, I'm just curious why you and your ilk are pushing this one so hard

The UN's only mandate's should be to try to stop wars, feed people in nations who because of disease drought etc are starving to death and to prevent mass genocide.

In RL and here the reality of the UN is it is INCOMPETENT at any of these tasks at best, and serves merely as a debating society for thos who prefer to talk instead of act. I come here to debate, I rule my nation as I SEE FIT

i'm pushing it so hard because people are pushing against it pretty hard. and i personally put too much effort into this to let them walk all over it. besides i think their arguments are somewhat silly, especially considering the fact that it is mostly a summary of the highlights of real life labor conventions that have been ratified by over 100 real life nations.

i myself am pro union, but i am VERY weary of this proposal. there is a delicate balance of power that must be met in each individual country between unions and corperations, and perhaps my biggest fear is that if you start pushing too hard on one side your opponents will simply do as i have done and refuse to even be a part of the UN, and if it does go that far, then you are no longer helping the worker as you intended. Be careful to give too much power to either side. I would vote against this if i had a vote, although i support of it in my own country as well.

So far, the greatest danger to freedom and stability has not come from unions but from transnational corporations, who are too powerful for any one nation to control.

Corporations, like it or not provide the jobs, services, etc that we need to live. Making laws to that cause buisness to go under because of huge profit losses brought on by unions is shear folly. You may think capitalism is a bad thing, but look to the RW as an example. Capitalist countrys have the wealthiest citizens. Why because buisness who can make big profits grow, and that provides jobs so that people can eat etc. Unions what to squash profits and cause companys to pay more money out. Thus raising the price of consumer goods. The real issue here is not wether Unions should be leagl or illegal, but rather or not the UN has the right to dicate a capitalistic or non capitalistic environment for its member nations

While Labor Unions to protect workers from abuse by their employers, labor unions must be restricted, so that the employees do not have to much power. When this happens, employees get excessive payments and shorter working hours. This cuts into a company's profits, and hurt the overall performance of the economy. I think it is a disgrace there to be a resolution such and The Rights of Labor Unions.

If labor unions have too much power then the company starts making bad products and won't modernize in attempts to get jobs. I am for unions but this resolution (like the last few) has gone too far.

... If you would generally support this resolution for your own people, why not support it for other nations' people?

Because unless they are being killed or tortured, it's really none of my business.

So... unions could usurp our authority by going straight to the UN for "help"?

So... unions could usurp our authority by going straight to the UN for "help"?

Basically, yes. It would become an issue for the UN to resolve whether or not a country was going too far in limiting the power of the union. So, if you want the UN controlling your economic policies, go ahead and vote YES.

I fail to see what merit this new proposal has. Okay, if you want labor unions in your country, good for you. It does not seem right to force people into labor unions.

For all you know, in a dictatorship, the unions and union member could be rounded up and executed just because a proposal like this one is passed.

The U.N. Should not have to babysit Labor disputes. that Job lies with the nation, and its unions within. The U.N. may not know the economics of that particular nation, they may not know the entire situation. and U.N. investigators would just prolong the majority of strikes that would/could end in just a weeks time. How can the U.N. help in this situation?

It Cant.

Oppresed possums is right, why should we as U.N. members force other nations to form unions for thier working population? My country has done just fine without them, granted if farmers fail to fullfill thier quota, they get flogged, but thats my country, not yours. and might i say my agricultural buisness is thriving.

I fail to see what merit this new proposal has. Okay, if you want labor unions in your country, good for you. It does not seem right to force people into labor unions.

Good thing this proposal doesn't force anyone to be in a labor union at all. The rulers of nations want all sorts of crazy things. Everyday it seems we hear another country rounding up all its elves or homosexuals and sending them to camps. Frankly, we don't care what the ruling classes want. This proposal provides the opportunity for regular people to organize and stand up for themselves, whether their rulers want them to or not. That is freedom.

For all you know, in a dictatorship, the unions and union member could be rounded up and executed just because a proposal like this one is passed.

The atrocity lies with them, not with us. We cannot stop fighting for global human rights and freedom and dignity because that might anger some oppressive dictator. We fight for human rights and freedom and dignity to get rid of oppressive dictators.
AFoFS UN Council

I fail to see what merit this new proposal has. Okay, if you want labor unions in your country, good for you. It does not seem right to force people into labor unions.

Good thing this proposal doesn't force anyone to be in a labor union at all. The rulers of nations want all sorts of crazy things. Everyday it seems we hear another country rounding up all its elves or homosexuals and sending them to camps. Frankly, we don't care what the ruling classes want. This proposal provides the opportunity for regular people to organize and stand up for themselves, whether their rulers want them to or not. That is freedom.

For all you know, in a dictatorship, the unions and union member could be rounded up and executed just because a proposal like this one is passed.

The atrocity lies with them, not with us. We cannot stop fighting for global human rights and freedom and dignity because that might anger some oppressive dictator. We fight for human rights and freedom and dignity to get rid of oppressive dictators.
AFoFS UN Council

Give it up. You don't care about people's rights, all you care about is pusshing your agenda of universal egalitarianism.

Give it up. You don't care about people's rights, all you care about is pusshing your agenda of universal egalitarianism.

(just felt like putting this up again. for emphasis)

When this bill is passed (and I fully expect the member sheep of the UN to pass it), I will be withdrawing from the United Nations.

Sadly, the UN now feels it is its place to not only meddle in the international affairs of member nations, but to legislate labor laws to member nations as well, even when some nations do not have economies that support the labor union system.

:(

The Nation of Carmarthen fully decries this proposal as pathetic, and nothing more than the socialist/communist nations attempting to further their agenda on a global scale.

"Socialism not working? Well hell, let's FORCE everyone in the UN to become more socialist." That seems to be the thought behind this.

Vote no. Keep your country how YOU see fit. The UN has no place in Economics. You can have good civil rights and labour agreements WITHOUT a union.

One wonders if the socialist would be so pragmatic about the idea of a UN resolution affecting the economy and labour market if it was one that forced them to become Capitalists...

*Gah, forums playing up, multiposted*

*Gah, forums playing up, multiposted*

...

...even when some nations do not have economies that support the labor union system.

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

[quote="Free Soviets: We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council[/quote]

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

farmer: "Looks like hail is coming, lets harvest the crop before its drstroyed"

worker: "No, Im on my lunch break. The Collective Agreement clearly states I am due a 1 hr lunch break no later than 4 hrs into my work shift."

farmer: "But we must bring in the crop before the hail destoys it! We can eat later"

worker: " Im filing a Grievance with the union aginst you! I am due my lunch and to hell with the crops. We signed a Collective Agreement and Im holding you to it...running dog of Imperialism!"

farmer: "but..but..the crops, my farm...I'll be ruined"

worker: "too bad, it isnt MY crop and the Union will always find me another job...now let's see what I have for lunch today"

...even when some nations do not have economies that support the labor union system.

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

You never did think things thoroughly before posting this asinine resolution, did you boy? :lol:

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

farmer: "Looks like hail is coming, lets harvest the crop before its drstroyed"

worker: "No, Im on my lunch break. The Collective Agreement clearly states I am due a 1 hr lunch break no later than 4 hrs into my work shift."

farmer: "But we must bring in the crop before the hail destoys it! We can eat later"

worker: " Im filing a Grievance with the union aginst you! I am due my lunch and to hell with the crops. We signed a Collective Agreement and Im holding you to it...running dog of Imperialism!"

farmer: "but..but..the crops, my farm...I'll be ruined"

worker: "too bad, it isnt MY crop and the Union will always find me another job...now let's see what I have for lunch today"

Somehow I doubt that a worker would be that insensitive and foolish. The farm is the source of the worker and his nation's food is it not? So unless the worker would want to starve, I fail to see how this scenario could possibly happen.

Yshurak believes that all lower-class citizens of the world should have the right to a labor union. We voted yes on the proposal.

UN Ambassador Ivon Millente

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

farmer: "Looks like hail is coming, lets harvest the crop before its drstroyed"

worker: "No, Im on my lunch break. The Collective Agreement clearly states I am due a 1 hr lunch break no later than 4 hrs into my work shift."

farmer: "But we must bring in the crop before the hail destoys it! We can eat later"

worker: " Im filing a Grievance with the union aginst you! I am due my lunch and to hell with the crops. We signed a Collective Agreement and Im holding you to it...running dog of Imperialism!"

farmer: "but..but..the crops, my farm...I'll be ruined"

worker: "too bad, it isnt MY crop and the Union will always find me another job...now let's see what I have for lunch today"

Somehow I doubt that a worker would be that insensitive and foolish. The farm is the source of the worker and his nation's food is it not? So unless the worker would want to starve, I fail to see how this scenario could possibly happen.

Yshurak believes that all lower-class citizens of the world should have the right to a labor union. We voted yes on the proposal.

UN Ambassador Ivon Millente

Since other farmers out there are supplying the collective, he could just mooch off of them. As for insensitivity and foolishness, throw in selfishness and all I would say would be: Welcome to the Human Race!

Somehow I doubt that a worker would be that insensitive and foolish. The farm is the source of the worker and his nation's food is it not? So unless the worker would want to starve, I fail to see how this scenario could possibly happen.

I can see you havent worked in a union workplace. Some unions are VERY adament on sticking to the Collective Agreement, otherwise, the thinking goes, management will pick away from some of the smaller points in the C.A. For example where I work, if the copier is out of paper, we must call in the 'tech worker' to replace any toner/paper etc...the machines are part of HIS job description and if I dare to replace paper, I am 'taking is job'. Sound dumb? Yer right, but its reality. If I finish my workload early, I am to do crosswords or even take a nap, but not take on any work; that is 'beyond the scope of my job description' negotiated by my union.

As to seasonal farm workers, IF they were unionized, do you honestly NOT expect some union rep to strictly enforce the CA?? The fact that farm labor is long and not always conducive to 'breaks', if they work sunup to sundown with their lunch on the go, what good is a union from what conditions are already? What or how could a union make any difference except thru the example I gave? After all, that is only one farm, and there are many farms needing labor, so it is not that 'unlikely' as you envision.

The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan is proud to have voted for the resolution at hand.

We personally feel that any of this nonsense of giving too much power to unions is pure hogwash. It merely gives more power to unions - power which they desperately need given the power of big business and transnational corporations. Forget these flagrant fantasies of communists over-running the world, this resolution is about equalizing the power relations between workers and employers. The economic interests of the powerful need to balanced by the interests of workers and unions are a great way to do that (but not that only way, which is why it makes unions legal but not mandatory). It's about a BALANCE of power that will work for everybody. Happy, well-respected workers do a better job and union members have more money to pour back into the economy. It's not an either-or situation. Unions can promote healthy economies.

The resolution does not interfere with state sovereignty any more than human rights resolutions. If nations do not think workers should have the right to form unions, they can simply leave the UN. It is a voluntary organization afterall. And yes, if there were a resolution that outlawed unions, Etanistan probably would seriously consider leaving the UN.

. :D

Posted a few times by accident. Sorry. :?

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

What about them? Such an economy could support unionized workers as well as any. In your hypothetical situation perhaps a better contract should have been worked out with the union workers to cover such things. Unions are for bargaining. So the employers will have to bargain. Oh the horror.
AFoFS UN Council

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

What about them? Such an economy could support unionized workers as well as any. In your hypothetical situation perhaps a better contract should have been worked out with the union workers to cover such things. Unions are for bargaining. So the employers will have to bargain. Oh the horror.
AFoFS UN Council

There's nothing wrong with unions per se. But this resolution gives unions special privileges that prevent true bargaining and trade from taking place. Therefore, we must vote NO on this resolution.

Oh wait, we quit the UN weeks ago. That's right.

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

What about them? Such an economy could support unionized workers as well as any. In your hypothetical situation perhaps a better contract should have been worked out with the union workers to cover such things. Unions are for bargaining. So the employers will have to bargain. Oh the horror.
AFoFS UN Council

There's nothing wrong with unions per se. But this resolution gives unions special privileges that prevent true bargaining and trade from taking place. Therefore, we must vote NO on this resolution.

Oh wait, we quit the UN weeks ago. That's right.

The resolution does not grant special privileges. It simply protects freedom of association. The mediation clause ensures that employees through unions will not achieve too great power, and whatever power they have will always be balanced by the employers right to hire and fire employees.

We are slightly puzzled by that statement. Define "an economy that does not support the labor union system".
AFoFS UN Council

What about small rural nations comprised mainly of small to medium family farming that employs seasonal hired farm help?

What about them? Such an economy could support unionized workers as well as any. In your hypothetical situation perhaps a better contract should have been worked out with the union workers to cover such things. Unions are for bargaining. So the employers will have to bargain. Oh the horror.
AFoFS UN Council

There's nothing wrong with unions per se. But this resolution gives unions special privileges that prevent true bargaining and trade from taking place. Therefore, we must vote NO on this resolution.

Oh wait, we quit the UN weeks ago. That's right.

The resolution does not grant special privileges. It simply protects freedom of association. The mediation clause ensures that employees through unions will not achieve too great power, and whatever power they have will always be balanced by the employers right to hire and fire employees.

On the contrary, it does and with no effective oversight I might add from the authorities.

It simply protects freedom of association.

No, it doesn't. Did you read clause 5? It explicitly denies an employer's freedom of association; therefore, it grants special privileges to one group at the expense of the rights of another.

....as long as we exclude the army, navy, police, firefighters, emergency service staff....


...any other professions that we need to exclude?

UN delegate fof Bigtopia

Incorrect.

Absent a contract with the employer to the contrary, there is no valid reason to pass laws banning these individuals from refusing to work, either individually or en masse.

"the un cannot do anything except infringe on the "rights of other nations to govern their own people".

I respectfully disagree. One of the primary functions of the UN is to provide the means for member nations to find ways to better peacefully co exist. While these type actions will definately facilitate the determination of viable opitons the decisions to accept or reject those options are soley the perogative of the Meber Nations

Example: the "Oslo Accords" Most of the Nations of the world believe they are a step forward in resolving the Palistinian- Ireali crisis; both Palaistine and Isreal accepted them however Isreal has determined that it is not in its best interest to empliment the Oslo Accords at this time.

However the way the the "in game" UN is set up Isreal would be required to fully empliment the Oslo Accords regardless of whether Isreal feel it is good for Ireal or not. On the one hand ( the Real World UN) you have repect for self determination and on the other ( the "in game" UN) you have tyrrany by majority vote.

....as long as we exclude the army, navy, police, firefighters, emergency service staff....


...any other professions that we need to exclude?

UN delegate fof Bigtopia

You should sign a contract w/ army and emergency workers where they waive their right to strike.

Otherwise, they have that right.

Oh and they have that right anyways. It's called a "Military Coup" :lol:

The United Nations is NOT a world government. As such, it does not have the right to set internal policy or law. We cannot give the UN this kind of power. It may advise, it may attempt to point the way, but I will not let them set my own legal policy and principle. What's next? Will we allow the UN to tell us what religions we must or must not allow? Will we allow resolutions condemning some of our government systems? I will vote against this resolution most strenuously.

Ambrose of Abrizza

What if I say that all work in my country would involve EVERYONE waiving their right to an union?

If they want to do business in my country, they have to agree to NEVER join a union.

What then?

Might I recommend that a new resolution be written to reverse the socialist aspects of the present resolution, as it seems to be leading with a healthy margin.

Otherwise, my country and several others within my region will be leaving the UN, allowing it to be the socialist farce that it is becoming.

Might I recommend that a new resolution be written to reverse the socialist aspects of the present resolution, as it seems to be leading with a healthy margin.

Otherwise, my country and several others within my region will be leaving the UN, allowing it to be the socialist farce that it is becoming.

It won't matter. Anytime the United Nations threatens national sovereignty only disaster can result. This resolution tries to force us to change the way we do things within our own nations, this is outside of the UN scope of influence. To support it would be to weaken our own sovereignty and freedom.

Ambrose of Abrizza

Indeed! Let us have a resolution that undoes the vicious harm from the current resolution AND imposes Capitalism upon Socialist nations.

Let us see then whom enjoys interference by the UN, no?

I understand your frustration Carmarthen, but what I would prefer is no interference to internal matters by the UN at all. This is the principle that the UN was founded upon, why is it so difficult for them to live up to it?

Ambrose of Abrizza

I'd like to see non-interference outside Human Rights and Environment issues, but you don't see that happening, do you?

If interference must happen, let it reflect upon those who want it in a way they do not wish.

I'd just like to point out that you can be very pro-union and still be opposed to this resolution. Some earlier posters imply that this is a referendum on unions. It's more an issue of whether or not you see this as an area that is appropriate for the UN. If you have already voted for this issue to support unions, but now consider this an inappropriate topic for the UN, please consider withdrawing your support and voting NO on this resolution.