NationStates Jolt Archive

If my country were to say, establish a national minimum wage, level of healthcare, etc. for only non-union members, would that violate the proposal?

That is a union member's wages, healthcare, etc are subject entirely to what he and the union negotiate they may be better or worse than those of non union members.

As an incentive for the government to prevent unionization and provide a good standard of living for all its workers, one could then just keep the national levels competative and unions would have less reason to form.

If my country were to say, establish a national minimum wage, level of healthcare, etc. for only non-union members, would that violate the proposal?

That is a union member's wages, healthcare, etc are subject entirely to what he and the union negotiate they may be better or worse than those of non union members.

As an incentive for the government to prevent unionization and provide a good standard of living for all its workers, one could then just keep the national levels competative and unions would have less reason to form.

That is a valid argument. One way to keep the unions from becoming powerful is to take away their reason for organizing in the first place.

But there are still issues with the current proposal. Even if you minimize the influence of unions, they will still form here and there as various segments of the workforce feel they are not being treated fairly. Once the unions are formed, according to the wording of the proposal, nations would be powerless to act in cases where unions become corrupt or abusive. There is even the potential for foreign influence via the unions, and it would be against the UN policy for a nation to do anything against it.

That is why a lot of people have a real problem with this proposal.

Seems reasonable to us. Though you still would have to allow unions, should people choose to form them. But if you can provide a society where everything is so good that no one wants to be in a union, then that seems like just a different way of reaching the same goal.
AFoFS UN Council

Once the unions are formed, according to the wording of the proposal, nations would be powerless to act in cases where unions become corrupt or abusive. There is even the potential for foreign influence via the unions, and it would be against the UN policy for a nation to do anything against it.

This is just false, and we believe the reasoning has been explained several times now. By nations that had nothing to do with the creation of this resolution, we might add.
AFoFS UN Council

Once the unions are formed, according to the wording of the proposal, nations would be powerless to act in cases where unions become corrupt or abusive. There is even the potential for foreign influence via the unions, and it would be against the UN policy for a nation to do anything against it.

This is just false, and we believe the reasoning has been explained several times now. By nations that had nothing to do with the creation of this resolution, we might add.
AFoFS UN Council

As you say, it has been discussed at great length, in other forums. But to dismiss it as false is just false. :)

I will admit that to say that nations would be powerless to stop the unions is oversimplifying things a bit. But I still feel that there is not adequate protection for a nation to be able to take action against a union which was attempting to weild its influence in malicious or corrupt ways, such as the possibility of the involvement of criminal or foreign subversive elements in the senior leadership of the Union.

And yes you might add that nations that had nothing to do with the creation of the proposal have a problem with it. I dont see the point in mentioning it. Because The Commonwealth of Billthecat did not take part in drafting a proposal, do we not have the right to question it? I thought that ALL UN members had a right to participate in the process? Do I need to re-examine the UN charter? :wink:

I will admit that to say that nations would be powerless to stop the unions is oversimplifying things a bit. But I still feel that there is not adequate protection for a nation to be able to take action against a union which was attempting to weild its influence in malicious or corrupt ways, such as the possibility of the involvement of criminal or foreign subversive elements in the senior leadership of the Union.

But if they are criminal and corrupt, they will act in ways that have not been protected by this resolution. So your justice system should be able to handle it.

And yes you might add that nations that had nothing to do with the creation of the proposal have a problem with it. I dont see the point in mentioning it. Because The Commonwealth of Billthecat did not take part in drafting a proposal, do we not have the right to question it? I thought that ALL UN members had a right to participate in the process? Do I need to re-examine the UN charter? :wink:

We are afraid you misunderstand us. We merely meant that there are others who also seem to be unable to find this alleged "putting unions above the law" in the resolution. These others were not involved in the discussions out of which this proposal came.
AFoFS UN Council

The Commonwealth of Billthecat does NOT have a slate of laws inplace to specifically address issues such as corrupt labor union activities.

However, because it appears that the proposal shall pass, I have called an emergency session of the Billthecat Assembly, for the purpose of enacting a comprehensive set of labor laws. The intent of the laws shall be to give the government tools to limit the power of Labor Unions, Churches, and Badminton Clubs.

These laws are in conflict with the vague wording of the current proposal, but since it is only a proposal, this does not present a problem. Until such a time as we are directed by the World Court to overturn the legislation, we will continue to safeguard the sovereignty of our Commonwealth.

If my country were to say, establish a national minimum wage, level of healthcare, etc. for only non-union members, would that violate the proposal?

That is a union member's wages, healthcare, etc are subject entirely to what he and the union negotiate they may be better or worse than those of non union members.

As an incentive for the government to prevent unionization and provide a good standard of living for all its workers, one could then just keep the national levels competative and unions would have less reason to form.

Since the intention of such actions would be to "break" the unions, they would at least be contrary to the spirit (and likely the letter) of this legislation.

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

The nation must have the right to accept or deny international aggreements as to whether they are in the best interest of the state.
Vote 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.

Free to formulate their own programs without interference from the state?

This makes them their own legistature?
Vote No!

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.

What about the rights of business? They should be free to reject any union affiliated person without question.

Vote No!


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.

Vote No!

Eli can support the other clauses.

vote no!