NationStates Jolt Archive

We find it unnecessary to raise questions of interpretation when the intent of the matter is clear (for instance, whining about typos or debating whether or not water is toxic waste), but in the case of this resolution, in light of certain vaguenesses and contradiction, and considering the self-acknowledged aim of its authors to deceive, we think it appropriate in this case to tender an analysis of the resolution. We will take the points of the resolution in reverse order:

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.
In spite of the controversly surrounding this clause, it is redundant and unimportant. It only asserts that governments may not nullify the resolution. This means nothing more than that the law is a law. NS-UN resolutions always override national law in any case.

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 would seem to be in contradiction of (1-5), until we consider that, by its very existence, even in default of (7), this resolution prevents nations from having laws imposing certain regulations in the first place. All this clause says is that the resolution confers no rights other than those described; it is also redundant and unimportant.
It would appear that this clause was added deliberately in order to make the resolution seem vague and ambiguous, and create a false sense that it does not affect national laws, so that it would be easier to promote, while (7) was added to ensure that (6) could not actually be interpreted to mean anything.

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.
Given the practical exigencies of this legislative forum, we find it inappropriate to indulge in speculation as to the definition of "adequate" - we are satisfied that the intent of this clause is clear.

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.
Again, though this has been the subject of much controversy, we feel that the intent is clear. The clause refers to drawing up, electing, organizing, and formulating. It clearly does not protect any substantive action, as has been otherwise claimed. It does, however, protect the right of unions to engage in conspiracies that might otherwise be illegal, as these might be part of formulating their program, and it prevents governments from taking any action to ensure that elections are fair or that unions actually represent the interests of the workers, as this would interfere with constitutions and rules, election of representatives, and organizing administration.

3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
This is redundant, since such associations are already protected by (4) as part of the union's constitution, administration, and programs. That this right has been singled out for especial protection suggests its importance. In view of the protection granted by (4) to participate in conspiracy, and the admitted intend of the originators of this resolution to destroy capitalism internationally, we may suppose that this unnecessary clause was included to ensure that the key intent of the resolution is not subverted by later misinterpretation. That intent is World Communism.

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.
"Industrial actions" is here a problematic phrase, since this might be taken to include actions normally illegal but commonly employed by unions, such as sabotage, obstruction of justice, obstruction of traffic, intimidation, destruction of property, criminal trespass, assault, and murder. If it was meant only to protect strikes, the more specific word "strike" should have been used; thus, we cannot assume that the resolution does not protect the right of unions to commit murder in the course of employment disputes.

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
"Recognizing" a union means recognizing it as the collective bargaining agent of the workers, and preventing employers from negotiating with individual workers. Union recognition consists in depriving workers of the ability to represent themselves; whether or not this actually redounds to their benefit is a separate question.

The actual effects of the resolution are these:

Unions are allowed to operate with ordinary protections;
International conspiracies may operate through labor unions;
Unions might, or might not, be allowed to use violent and normally illegal tactics.

"thus, we cannot assume that the resolution does not protect the right of unions to commit murder in the course of employment disputes."

Unions can't commit murder. To paraphrase, "Unions don't kill people, union members do." And there is nothing in that resolution that states that a union member is immune from prosecution. At worst, there would be obstacles to prosecuting the union leaders if it was believed they ordered the murder.

And there's many vagueries here that, while apparently intentional on the writer's part, could be used to do even that. If you oppose this resolution, you're probably not the kind of nation that would appoint judges that would find criminal conspiracy to commit murder to be an "industrial action", and since A) that term isn't defined in the resolution, and B) there's no world court to overturn you, most of the crimes you described would still be prosecutable. And hell, I'm not even crazy enough to appoint that kind of judge. Vagueries cut both ways.

However, while I think the resolution itself is a good one, I will not vote for it if I find that the writer's intent was not straightforward. Underhanded attempts to subvert the UN should not be rewarded, and as such I may have to abstain on or (GASP) vote against this thing.

Unions can't commit murder. To paraphrase, "Unions don't kill people, union members do."
We apologize for the error. Also, unions don't picket, union members do. The protection of industrial actions is obviously meant to protect certain actions of individuals.
It was not the intent of the authors of this resolution to legalize violence, but given their mendacity in other aspects of its framing, we wish that they would have used the term "strike" instead of "industrial action", for the sake of clarity.

However, while I think the resolution itself is a good one, I will not vote for it if I find that the writer's intent was not straightforward. Underhanded attempts to subvert the UN should not be rewarded, and as such I may have to abstain on or (GASP) vote against this thing.
The authors of the resolution stated their intent to deceive quite plainly in their discussions on their own site; for instance:
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.

However, while I think the resolution itself is a good one, I will not vote for it if I find that the writer's intent was not straightforward. Underhanded attempts to subvert the UN should not be rewarded, and as such I may have to abstain on or (GASP) vote against this thing.

The authors' (plural) intent is quite plain. They, and we, seek to use the UN to protect the rights and well-being of working people around the world. You know, by submitting an proposal - like we did - and making it reasonable enough so that people would vote for it while still making positive progress in the cause of human freedom and dignity.

Is it underhanded to use the UN for its intended purpose?

Is it underhanded to make a compromise proposal that stands a chance of getting enacted instead of making a strict ideological one that doesn't?

That just sounds like politics to us. It is how things have to be done when working within the pre-established structures.
AFoFS UN Council

Enodia stands resolutely behind Free Soviets in this resolution.

This resolution is a reasonably simple effort to create the right to unionize in UN states; a right which many already enjoy.

For those interested in trade expansion the creation of unions is likely to minimize the flow of jobs from developed to developing countries while the benefit to developing countries comes from the increase in living standards that accompany unionization.

The inclusion of a notwithstanding clause (clause 6), placing the effects of the resolution firmly within the context of national laws, should alleviate the fears of many who worry that this will impose undue hardships on their government, or represent an erosion of national sovereignty.

The Commonwealth of Khan Daun Penh, resolutely in favour of profits and the development of international trade, is pleased to support this resolution.

Amicably,

(for the) Commonwealth of Khan Daun Penh

:(

Bad idea...
VERY bad idea...

This resolution, according to acticle 4, can erode national sovereignty, despite the nonsense of articles 6 and 7.

Imagine, if you will, that an international organization can enter your country and do what it pleases, legally. If you try to enforce an internal ordinace, the issue will surely got to the World Court in which, odds are, the case will go against you.

I can imagine that if the authors REALLY wanted to protect the formation of Unions within all UN members, they could have certainly written something A LOT more straight forward, without the unneccessary gobblty-gook (excess verbage?).

Bad idea...

Blue Vale definitively votes against this resolution, and advises all who want to keep their homes theirs, do as well.

The erosion of national soveriengty is not an adequate criticism of any UN resolution as it is an accusation that can be leveled against all UN resolutions, which by their nature remove areas of political life from the control of individual nations and place them in the hands of the world body.

Criticisms should be made based on whether the erosions attendant on passage of any given resolution will help or harm individual nations and the world at large.

Khan Daun Penh supports this resolution as it mirrors laws extant in the Commonwealth. It also serves to set an international standard for the recognition of trade unions, making it difficult for our small community of hard-line leftists to whip their more moderate colleagues into a frenzy over attacks on workers rights etc, something which would be helpful for most countries, I suspect: if passed, further UN resolutions calling for a more radical interpretation of labour rights are unlikely to be passed. As has been mentioned elsewhere this was the motivation for many governments to offer recognition to real world trade unions - states that passed such laws experienced diminished labour troubles, increased productivity, and greater profits for employers.

Amicably,

(for the) Commonwealth of Khan Daun Penh

The Crown has seen this resolution and her words are thus - "We are not amused. If this resolution is passed and imposed on our lands, we shall voice our displeasure by removing the 'Compliance Ministry' from our Realm and recalling our Ambassador from the UN. We have very good relations between our Trade Ministry and the various guilds, craft assocations, and trade groups and do not need or want any 'outside interference' in how workers ply their trade. It is our desire that a vote against the resolution be cast."

These are the words of Mian, by the grace of the Goddess, Queen of the Furry Folk.

"Also, unions don't picket, union members do."

No, unions picket. Can one man, alone, commit a murder? Yes. Can one man, alone, picket with any sort of effect at all? No. See where the difference is?

Anyway, union or union member, doesn't matter because your courts get to pick and choose what is and isn't an industrial action anyway. And one would assume you do have some control over who's on your courts, neh?

To anyone who argues "national sovereignty": you want national sovereignty, stay out of the UN. I agree with the person above who said that everything the UN DOES in this game compromises national sovereignty, and I really don't much care that it does. I knew what my nation was getting into when I signed up for the UN.

As for the one quote....yeah, I went and saw it. Having seen it in context, it looks like one overly slippery bad apple amongst a bunch of mostly straightforward types.

"Is it underhanded to make a compromise proposal that stands a chance of getting enacted instead of making a strict ideological one that doesn't?"

No. It IS underhanded to, as your compatriot suggested, write intentionally vaguely-worded proposals in hopes of tricking the innocent to vote for it. However, it doesn't particularly seem to me like that's what was done. Thus my vote FOR this resolution stands. In the future, however, you could do more to avoid even a SHADOW of deceptive tactics.

The question of sovereignty is absolutely central to this resolution.

It is the charter of the UN to override the sovereignty of its member nations when the health, welfare and basic human rights of any individual persons in any member nations are in jeopardy. It is not within the charter of the UN to propose a specific socioeconomic system for all member nations on the grounds that it may result in an improvement in the general economic condition of workers -- which Dendrys does not feel is in any way guaranteed by this resolution.

Therefore, Dendrys opposes the resolution on the grounds that the wording DOES detract from Dendrys' ability to deal with future abuses of human rights, health and welfare by forbidding Dendrys to make future laws regulating the behaviour of unions.


Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

However, while I think the resolution itself is a good one, I will not vote for it if I find that the writer's intent was not straightforward. Underhanded attempts to subvert the UN should not be rewarded, and as such I may have to abstain on or (GASP) vote against this thing.

The authors' (plural) intent is quite plain. They, and we, seek to use the UN to protect the rights and well-being of working people around the world. You know, by submitting an proposal - like we did - and making it reasonable enough so that people would vote for it while still making positive progress in the cause of human freedom and dignity.

Is it underhanded to use the UN for its intended purpose?

Is it underhanded to make a compromise proposal that stands a chance of getting enacted instead of making a strict ideological one that doesn't?

That just sounds like politics to us. It is how things have to be done when working within the pre-established structures.
AFoFS UN Council

Then the authors are illiterate.

Two questions for Free Soviets. Please answer plainly, but lie if you must.

1: Does this resolution protect the ability of international Communist organizations to influence, and collaborate with, national trade unions, or not?

2: Was this an intentional consequence of the resolution. or not?

1: This resolution does not directly protect the ability of international non-union organizations to collaborate with and influence unions. However, we feel that collaboration and influence - or attempts to influence and collaborate - are otherwise protected by Articles 2 and 3 of The Universal Bill of Rights and the principle of free association upon which this resolution is based.

2: We are not sure how to answer the second question given our answer to the first. We do know that we would not write a proposal that banned international organizations from lawfully working with and attempting to influence unions (or any other group or organization).
AFoFS UN Council

This resolution is a reasonably simple effort to create the right to unionize in UN states; a right which many already enjoy.

If nations are already enjoying the right to unionize, why does there need to be a UN resolution granting this right?


For those interested in trade expansion the creation of unions is likely to minimize the flow of jobs from developed to developing countries while the benefit to developing countries comes from the increase in living standards that accompany unionization.

Another question, are you saying this will stop the flow of jobs because everybody will then be unionized? I don't understand how this will benefit developing countries. If they can't generate their own jobs and countries wanting cheaper products can't find a place with lower wages so that prices are cheaper, how will developing countries have higher wages? There won't be any jobs.

After reading and re-reading through some of the objections to the proposal put forward by Free Soviets that is the only conclusion that the Central Council of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia can arrive at in regard as to the motivations of the complainants.

Leaving aside the attempt by RSI to provide some element of legal analysis to the proposal (fail mark, you don't analysis legal documents backwards then claim they are inconsistent, sorry couldn't resist), the complainants appear to have two main problems;

1. That the proposal is a "Trojan Horse" proposal setting the scene for a world communist takeover via the destruction of international capitalism.
This idea is just plain ridiculous. Communist organisation’s do not:
a) take over the world via the control of Trade Unions or their linking together in international labour organisations. This would be a pointless exercise. Communists will stand for elections in union ballots and may or may not end up leading some, if not a majority, of those unions. However, there are other forces at play that despise communist influence in unions and form blocs of their own: this has been the history of the labour movement.
b) seek to destroy international capitalism per-se. That is an historical inevitability and anyway would be against the interest of the proletariat – the machinery of capital is to be seized, not destroyed. It is the actual capitalists that will be destroyed. Both Marx and Lenin were particularly clear on this point. Hence Lenin’s opposition to proletarian revolution in India until it had achieved a level of industrialisation that would make a revolution possible.

2. The proposal is a threat to national sovereignty.
This old chestnut. This argument could be validly applied to every proposal that passes through the UN given the right level of paranoia. How would a nation’s sovereignty be threatened by labour organisations forming an international alliance? Well it would allow collectives of workers to share information on organising plans, exchange information regarding tactics and newly emerging positions of capital in advanced nations. It would also assist weaker unions in undeveloped areas to access assistance in regard to cross-border boycotts and embargos to strengthen wage or condition campaigns. But a threat to international sovereignty? I doubt it. Considering that any nation has the absolute right to remove itself from the provisions of the UN by resignation the whole “threat; scenario is specious. It is also incredibly boring as we can’t understand what on earth you’d be doing here in the first place considering that is what the UN does – pass resolutions that are binding on its membership.

Síochán leat.

Peoples Commissar
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

As an afterthought Stakanovia would like to add that this proposal does not fit with a correct communist position. The proposal merely seeks to impose a further level of bureacracy onto the labour movement further distancing it's already compromised leadership from the working class. This move actually weakens workers involvement in the running of their unions and their ability to organise industrial and social action where necessary.

While internationalism is important, nay, vital, there is a danger in realigning the focus of unions from coalface organising to bureacratic mediation and negotiation. However, at this stage we will support it as at least it imposes recognition of workers demands via union strength.

After reading and re-reading through some of the objections to the proposal put forward by Free Soviets that is the only conclusion that the Central Council of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia can arrive at in regard as to the motivations of the complainants.

Leaving aside the attempt by RSI to provide some element of legal analysis to the proposal (fail mark, you don't analysis legal documents backwards then claim they are inconsistent, sorry couldn't resist), the complainants appear to have two main problems;

1. That the proposal is a "Trojan Horse" proposal setting the scene for a world communist takeover via the destruction of international capitalism.
This idea is just plain ridiculous. Communist organisation’s do not:
a) take over the world via the control of Trade Unions or their linking together in international labour organisations. This would be a pointless exercise. Communists will stand for elections in union ballots and may or may not end up leading some, if not a majority, of those unions. However, there are other forces at play that despise communist influence in unions and form blocs of their own: this has been the history of the labour movement.
b) seek to destroy international capitalism per-se. That is an historical inevitability and anyway would be against the interest of the proletariat – the machinery of capital is to be seized, not destroyed. It is the actual capitalists that will be destroyed. Both Marx and Lenin were particularly clear on this point. Hence Lenin’s opposition to proletarian revolution in India until it had achieved a level of industrialisation that would make a revolution possible.

2. The proposal is a threat to national sovereignty.
This old chestnut. This argument could be validly applied to every proposal that passes through the UN given the right level of paranoia. How would a nation’s sovereignty be threatened by labour organisations forming an international alliance? Well it would allow collectives of workers to share information on organising plans, exchange information regarding tactics and newly emerging positions of capital in advanced nations. It would also assist weaker unions in undeveloped areas to access assistance in regard to cross-border boycotts and embargos to strengthen wage or condition campaigns. But a threat to international sovereignty? I doubt it. Considering that any nation has the absolute right to remove itself from the provisions of the UN by resignation the whole “threat; scenario is specious. It is also incredibly boring as we can’t understand what on earth you’d be doing here in the first place considering that is what the UN does – pass resolutions that are binding on its membership.

Síochán leat.

Peoples Commissar
Economic Superstructure Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

Yeah, I'm going to trust the words of an ideologue. What a joke.

1: This resolution does not directly protect the ability of international non-union organizations to collaborate with and influence unions. However, we feel that collaboration and influence - or attempts to influence and collaborate - are otherwise protected by Articles 2 and 3 of The Universal Bill of Rights and the principle of free association upon which this resolution is based.

2: We are not sure how to answer the second question given our answer to the first. We do know that we would not write a proposal that banned international organizations from lawfully working with and attempting to influence unions (or any other group or organization).
AFoFS UN Council

You are not sure, because you don't care. It's only your ideology that's important.

1: This resolution does not directly protect the ability of international non-union organizations to collaborate with and influence unions.
False. Article 3 explicitly and directly protects this ability - and this is the content you are so "studiosly directing attention away from".

Bugger!

Well, comrades, Aquilogna has seen through our simple ruse.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board.

1: This resolution does not directly protect the ability of international non-union organizations to collaborate with and influence unions.
False. Article 3 explicitly and directly protects this ability - and this is the content you are so "studiosly directing attention away from".

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

We stand by our statment. This resolution does not directly protect the ability of international non-union organizations to collaborate with and influence unions. We also still stand by our statement that any such peaceful collaboration and influence is already protected.
AFoFS UN Council

Any international Communist organization (like the IWW) can easily call itself a labor union, as you well know.

Bugger!

Well, comrades, Aquilogna has seen through our simple ruse.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board.

Shut it!

Any international Communist organization (like the IWW) can easily call itself a labor union, as you well know.

Only if they actually are a labor union - like the Wobs. Besides, its not as if communists are the only workers who can form labor unions.