NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen the threads that are up so far, but I want to give everyone a chance to speak their peace. Please, keep it civil, but argue good points.

I'll say my peace, and let loose the dogs of war:

Clause #1: It works. Not a lot of holes that I can see. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Clause #2: I fail to see why this would be necessary, honestly.
Clause #3: Basically, this allows for the construction of SuperUnions, creating and enforcing labor law without following proper channel. But what of our law enforcement, you ask? Well, take a look at the next clause.
Clause #4: Essentially, this clause is designed to protect these unions from any sort of legal interference when deciding what they will do. While this will also allow for mob influence to run rampant within the labor unions, it also protects the previously mentioned SuperUnions when they inevitably go corrupt from any sort of corrective action by law enforcement.
Clause #5: Anti-Union Discrimination is not clearly defined in this case, and making this law would allow anyone to define it however they wish.
Clause #6: This is fine, but again, how can we enforce this with Clause #4 in place?
Clause #7: This is basically a "You cannot defeat this Act" clause, basically engraving it in titanium.

I will be voting against this proposal. Just to clarify, this is all my opinion and interpretation, laced with a healthy bit of paranoia. Feel free to take or leave it as you will.

So, responses?

We must stop this . This is the only proposal that I have seen that would make both the mafia and the commies proud it is if at all possible a greater threat that world heritige and some of the other silly proposals that have been voted on.

Clause 2: The primary purpose of this clause is to ensure that aggrieved workers are able to voice their dissent through protests, marches and other forms of industrial action. The latter part of this clause sets a standard on the limit on the duration of a strike. 60 days is the cut off point - before 60 days mediatiors may be used, but beyond 60 days they must be used.

Clause 3: Clause 6 mandates that labor unions must respect the laws of their respective countries.

Clause 4: The purpose of this article is to prevent the state from co-opting, assimilating and turning the union into nothing but a tool of the state, which runs contrary to the very point of unions. The internal politics of the union would be safeguarded, but the actions of union members would still be subject to local law.

Clause 5: You could propose an amendment if you don't like it.

Clause 6: Clause 4 is subject to Clause 6. Union members will still be required to respect local law.

It seems to me that Citronnia's and anhierarch's positions are not mutually exclusive. I think that both positions are basically true.

Yes it does protect the workers from being oppressed by their governments, but it also binds the hands of the government when there is legitimate reason to take steps to limit the power of the unions.

Please keep in mind that the intent of the writers of a law is often ovverridden by the letter of the law, i.e. its literal meaning, because "intent" is open to a wide range of interpretations.

*applauds Bill*

It is the position of the Community of Dendrys not to make laws when they are not needed, and under no circumstances to make laws that bind the federal government's future ability to make laws. We cannot anticipate what abuses of civil liberties, worker rights and union organisations may occur due to interpretations from (as Bill pointed out) the "intent" of the law. Therefore, we cannot agree to tie our federal hands and concede our future ability to make laws to regulate union practices.

As for this being a United Nations resolution -- which is a separate question from whether this resolution would be beneficial to the Community of Dendrys, its workers, its unions, or any other groups in the Community -- Dendrys does not believe that it is within the United Nations' charter to implement resolutions that dictate economic policy in its member nations. It is in the charter to protect human rights and welfare, which is why the United Nations has abolished slavery, child labour and other human rights violations in an economic context, but the ability of unions to act outside basic standards for money-receiving, public organisations is not a matter of human rights.

Dendrys has and will continue to maintain laws that require unions to have a charter and bylaws, to report financial activities to their members, to extend services to workers regardless of religion, race, sex, gender, etc. Dendrys applauds nations who maintain good relations with workers and worker organisations. Dendrys does not, however, support a resolution to force other nations with other formulas for public welfare to adopt a different system of economic-political interaction.



Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

Fair labor practices become an international issue when employers in developed nations send their jobs overseas to exploit unprotected unorganized powerless workers in undeveloped countries. Globalized economics is already tyrannizing local sovereignty, dictating policy, ignoring social controls. Internationalizing labor regulations should redress this imbalance and result in an increase of local power.

Passing this law without any limitations on the unions only results in a higher cost of living within UN countries, while non UN countries will be able to undercut pricing and forward their economies while ours faulter and fall. It will be the consumer that will pick up the increase not the manufactor where the union is present.

Clause #3: Basically, this allows for the construction of SuperUnions, creating and enforcing labor law without following proper channel. But what of our law enforcement, you ask? Well, take a look at the next clause.
Clause #4: Essentially, this clause is designed to protect these unions from any sort of legal interference when deciding what they will do. While this will also allow for mob influence to run rampant within the labor unions, it also protects the previously mentioned Superunions when they inevitably go corrupt from any sort of corrective action by law enforcement.

After studying these two clauses, I am forced to concede that the bill does indeed permit the formation of international superunioins exempt from all legislative action of their respective countries.

In addition Clause 7 states "National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution," implying that national laws are allowed to impair these rights, but are not forced to do so. It then states 'Laws that contradict these guarantees shall not be created or enforced," which makes it impossible to impair these rights, contradicting the first part of the same clause. Which part is the correct one?

As for the threat of "commies" and the "mafia"...

The resolution, despite the fact that it does create, essentially, "SuperUnions", does indicate that Union Members are still required to follow legal process. Presumably, this would stop the labor unions from, say, seizing corporate property and holdings of private individuals without resolution (this is different from, say, arguing for higher wages). In addition, organized crime IS illegal. Whatever connections between labor unions and organized crime, and for that matter, wealthy corporate leaders and organized crime, still exist anyway.

As for "commies", the Communist Faction is invariably that, a faction, which, like the Fascist, Conservative, and Agrigarian (sp?) Factions, is entitled to exist in a nation that prides itself as allowing freedom of speech and peaceful protest. They are beliefs, and they will probably be motivated by such a bill, just as another bill against, say, inheritance taxes could motivate the Capitalist Faction and result in "SuperCEOs".

Of course, this is all just food for thought.

Yes, but you can't allow one political faction to take over the entire UN - that completely defeats the purpose.

Clause #3: Basically, this allows for the construction of SuperUnions, creating and enforcing labor law without following proper channel. But what of our law enforcement, you ask? Well, take a look at the next clause.
Clause #4: Essentially, this clause is designed to protect these unions from any sort of legal interference when deciding what they will do. While this will also allow for mob influence to run rampant within the labor unions, it also protects the previously mentioned Superunions when they inevitably go corrupt from any sort of corrective action by law enforcement.

After studying these two clauses, I am forced to concede that the bill does indeed permit the formation of international superunioins exempt from all legislative action of their respective countries.

But they are not. All that unions are exempt from is political meddling in the internal organizing and running of unions. They still have to follw the law - as long as the law doesn't say things like "All union representatives must be chosen by the state" or "Unions are not allowed to go on strike" at least.
AFoFS UN Council

Clause #3: Basically, this allows for the construction of SuperUnions, creating and enforcing labor law without following proper channel. But what of our law enforcement, you ask? Well, take a look at the next clause.
Clause #4: Essentially, this clause is designed to protect these unions from any sort of legal interference when deciding what they will do. While this will also allow for mob influence to run rampant within the labor unions, it also protects the previously mentioned SuperUnions when they inevitably go corrupt from any sort of corrective action by law enforcement.
Clause #7: This is basically a "You cannot defeat this Act" clause, basically engraving it in titanium.

I have to totally agree with those who are against this. This resolution does little more than allow organized crime to have a totally protected racket on all of commerce in the countries of member nations. Or it could force higer unemployment rates since because of clause 4, management can not request legal action against unions, and would be forced to concede to every demand since nothing through the government can be done about it. The main reason why unions don't strike every time contract negotiations get stalled and management doesn't lockout employees, as I see it, and I'm not an expert on labor disputes, is because eiter side can request a GOVERNMENT mediator or arbitrar to come in and settle it. If one side is forced to take goverment action, the other side is made out to be the bad guy. If this resolution passes, member nations could very well see more strikes and/or higher unemployment rates. As of now, Uber Neo Zeon will vote against the resolution. If the Author would like to explain the point of the resolution, please telegram me. Thank you.

Brad J,
President of Uber Neo Zeon

But they are not. All that unions are exempt from is political meddling in the internal organizing and running of unions. They still have to follw the law - as long as the law doesn't say things like "All union representatives must be chosen by the state" or "Unions are not allowed to go on strike" at least.
AFoFS UN Council

But that could also be decided within the "SuperUnions," and said laborers would have no legal recourse. The only thing they could do is leave, reducing the SuperUnion's power. It's putting too much power in one place, and that causes problems, no matter how honorable or good the intent.

I still stand by my decision. This proposal is a threat to governmental authority, and is in need of, at the least, a very strong rewrite before it becomes a proper proposal.

I just posted this to the Europe forum but I think it would fit here too.

Although I am in favour of the ability for workers to be represented collectively (if they want it), this motion is woefully inadaquate for the following reasons:

1) Essential services are not exempted.
Under this resolution police department unions and fire department unions can decide a crime wave or a 3-alarm fire would be a good opportuity to stage a walk out in order to press for higher wages.

2) The military is not exempted.
Soldiers are employees too. The signal to advance would not be a good time to strike for better working conditions. The security of a nation with a striking military is severly compromised to a nation who does not allow his military to have a union. There will be a severe break down in discipline if a soldier refuses sentry duty and calls over his shop steward to back him up.

3) There is no specification in this resolution which stipulates the percentage of workers required to create a new union or the percentage of workers required to disband a union.
This resolution specifically states: "4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs."
This means that a union is quite free to create rules which states that the approval of only 10 percent of the workers in a factory gives the mandate to create a union and once created a union cannot be disbanded without 95% approval of the workers.
This resolution effectively hands over control of production in a nation to a small group (the union bosses) who have no responsibility to the citizens of the nation, the shareholders in a company or even the majority of the workers.

Please vote 'No' on this resolution.

I think the proposal give to much power to the Unions. And in the bottom line the Union would control the country.

I think the proposal give to much power to the Unions. And in the bottom line the Union would control the country.

As opposed to now, when big business controls the country. :D

Seriously, this resolution will NOT allow unions to control the world. It merely creates a balance of power that will be better for most people. You can't ever fully disentangle economic and political power and both work better with a healthy, heterogenous balance.

The resolution is idealistic and not real. Having belonged to a union at one time, not many of those ideals worked out. There was a power between Management and the union constantly. The Officers in the union did not represent there members but did what benefitted them. Negotions between management and the union were inadequite or the intelligence of the union left alot to be desired. The end result was they lost their shirts after the strike , recieved the same pay raise but lost in language and benefits, went against the national union and were laughed at by another union for not accepting original contract which they considered above average. I see no reason that the same level of corruption would not evolve here.

The resolution is idealistic and not real. Having belonged to a union at one time, not many of those ideals worked out. There was a power between Management and the union constantly. The Officers in the union did not represent there members but did what benefitted them. Negotions between management and the union were inadequite or the intelligence of the union left alot to be desired. The end result was they lost their shirts after the strike , recieved the same pay raise but lost in language and benefits, went against the national union and were laughed at by another union for not accepting original contract which they considered above average. I see no reason that the same level of corruption would not evolve here.

How is it unrealistic? Where a union ceases to provide its members a sufficient service, they can simply depart from the union. The resolution at vote allows them to make that choice without concerning themselves with whether or not to be a member. It does not enforce compulsory unionism, and doesn't require unions to be promoted. It allows them to exist without employee interference against their members because of their membership.

I think the proposal give to much power to the Unions. And in the bottom line the Union would control the country.

As opposed to now, when big business controls the country. :D

Seriously, this resolution will NOT allow unions to control the world. It merely creates a balance of power that will be better for most people. You can't ever fully disentangle economic and political power and both work better with a healthy, heterogenous balance.

Big Business controlling the country is a tad extreme. It may exert a large influence in the areas of trade both national and international, but that is in the benefit of everyone.

I have never understood the large dislike for big business. Big businesses started out small and they grew because they produced better products or rendered better services and when they get large the majority of people think we ought to tax the hell of of these companies which is a bad idea. All this does is weakens these companies, and drives up their costs and prices which allow for more inferior products and services to be out on the market from inferior companies thus lowering the quality of life for everyone. Not only are these companies prodiving products/services they are providing employment to many people improving their lot in life. I can see the need for legal provisions for termination of employment, ensuring it is done only for cause, but I am strongly against excessive government regualtion in trade. If people realized the power they could posses if they could be a little more self sufficent the pervasive need for constant employment would go away and the job markey would be more beneficial to those who choose to work. That is to say if you grow your own food and make your own clothing the need to work for others would be greatly diminished.

Just some thoughts I a sure the flames are heating up so flame on....I know you want to....

I think the proposal give to much power to the Unions. And in the bottom line the Union would control the country.

As opposed to now, when big business controls the country. :D

Seriously, this resolution will NOT allow unions to control the world. It merely creates a balance of power that will be better for most people. You can't ever fully disentangle economic and political power and both work better with a healthy, heterogenous balance.

Big Business controlling the country is a tad extreme. It may exert a large influence in the areas of trade both national and international, but that is in the benefit of everyone.

I have never understood the large dislike for big business. Big businesses started out small and they grew because they produced better products or rendered better services and when they get large the majority of people think we ought to tax the hell of of these companies which is a bad idea. All this does is weakens these companies, and drives up their costs and prices which allow for more inferior products and services to be out on the market from inferior companies thus lowering the quality of life for everyone. Not only are these companies prodiving products/services they are providing employment to many people improving their lot in life. I can see the need for legal provisions for termination of employment, ensuring it is done only for cause, but I am strongly against excessive government regualtion in trade. If people realized the power they could posses if they could be a little more self sufficent the pervasive need for constant employment would go away and the job markey would be more beneficial to those who choose to work. That is to say if you grow your own food and make your own clothing the need to work for others would be greatly diminished.

Just some thoughts I a sure the flames are heating up so flame on....I know you want to....

You make a nice sweet little irrelevant point, and you put so much effort into it. The thread concerns a UN resolution which argues for the legislative protection of union membership, have you read it?

This resolution effectively hands over control of production in a nation to a small group (the union bosses) who have no responsibility to the citizens of the nation, the shareholders in a company or even the majority of the workers.

Quite true. If you really look at the way unions work, oftentimes it is not entirely to the benefit of the worker to strike. After all, they don't get paid during this time. Many simply vote yea when voting for a strike because of "the principle behind the matter." But union bosses get paid to cause rukuses (sp?).

What New Anvilania says about essential servies is also very true. I believe I said this somehwere else... not sure where though.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

This resolution effectively hands over control of production in a nation to a small group (the union bosses) who have no responsibility to the citizens of the nation, the shareholders in a company or even the majority of the workers.

Quite true. If you really look at the way unions work, oftentimes it is not entirely to the benefit of the worker to strike. After all, they don't get paid during this time. Many simply vote yea when voting for a strike because of "the principle behind the matter." But union bosses get paid to cause rukuses (sp?).

What New Anvilania says about essential servies is also very true. I believe I said this somehwere else... not sure where though.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Against that, the union members have the right to chose whether or not to be a member of the union. If a union is acting in the interests of the union bosses rather than in the interests of the members of that union, those members have the right to leave the union and form their own. The unions are directly answerable to their members, even if that power is not any better than a small shareholder at a general meeting. Where employees aren't treated well, however, it is important that the union is there to protect employment conditions.

Unions tie employers hands behind their backs. Nothing is worse than strikes.
We can't see how this is winning!

Unions tie employers hands behind their backs. Nothing is worse than strikes.
We can't see how this is winning!

I'm all for unions. A collective voice for workers is okay with me.

What I'm *NOT* for is granting too much power to any one person or group of people.

Fair labor practices become an international issue when employers in developed nations send their jobs overseas to exploit unprotected unorganized powerless workers in undeveloped countries. Globalized economics is already tyrannizing local sovereignty, dictating policy, ignoring social controls. Internationalizing labor regulations should redress this imbalance and result in an increase of local power.

Dendrys disagrees. The resolution does not call for an internationalisation of labour regulations. It calls for an international quash on treating unions the same way that we treat any other organisation that takes in money, plans events on public or private property, or claims to represent a class of citizens. Under this resolution, Dendrys could not require that unions have a set of bylaws stipulating how they will elect their representatives -- so that the members know what the rules are before they join. Dendrys could not require unions to provide an accounting to members showing where their membership dues went. These are laws Dendrys applies to ALL organisations -- corporations, churches, even public libraries.

We understand that there are nations where laws oppress unions. We would support a resolution that stated, "No UN member nation may make laws forbidding the formation of labour unions," with perhaps some more detailed language about what constitutes a labour union and what they do that can't be forbidden. But without language in the present resolution forcing unions to be accountable to their members, Dendrys cannot support a resolution that ties Dendrys' hands. It is an invitation to other civil rights abuses.



Respectfully,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

This resolution WOULD be worth considering, except for the fact that the unions have too much power. You could get large unions, composed of all different sorts of workers go on strike, and basically shut the country down for a period of time (until they decide to go back to work), and the government would be helpless. While I am not for suppressing unions, I am against having unions that have too much power. This resolution requires a few limitations on what unions can, and cannot do, because as I see it, they would have far too much power.

I suggest that people vote "NO" for this resolution.

This resolution WOULD be worth considering, except for the fact that the unions have too much power. You could get large unions, composed of all different sorts of workers go on strike, and basically shut the country down for a period of time (until they decide to go back to work), and the government would be helpless. While I am not for suppressing unions, I am against having unions that have too much power. This resolution requires a few limitations on what unions can, and cannot do, because as I see it, they would have far too much power.

I suggest that people vote "NO" for this resolution.

*Stands up and claps for Coulville*

I also feel that this could very well shut down entire countries since if a part of one union is striking, the other parts are expected to follow suit. And if these unions go international, what then? Many parts of the world could completly shut down if the workers in one country strike. Also, quoting what has already been mention by several others(I don't remember exactly who, but I hope this will give credit to them), many times, union leaders call for strikes, but do nothing to help the members actually striking. I live in Sothern California, where we are experiencing two different but fairly devistating strikes right now. And the unions are doing nothing to try and end the strikes because they are not returning to the negotiation tables. How is refusing to negotiate helping the members?

Brad J,
President of Uber Neo Zeon

This resolution WOULD be worth considering, except for the fact that the unions have too much power. You could get large unions, composed of all different sorts of workers go on strike, and basically shut the country down for a period of time (until they decide to go back to work), and the government would be helpless. While I am not for suppressing unions, I am against having unions that have too much power. This resolution requires a few limitations on what unions can, and cannot do, because as I see it, they would have far too much power.

I suggest that people vote "NO" for this resolution.

*applause*

A point I didn't even catch, sir Coulville. Well played. I am definitely against this proposal now. :)

Against that, the union members have the right to chose whether or not to be a member of the union. If a union is acting in the interests of the union bosses rather than in the interests of the members of that union, those members have the right to leave the union and form their own. The unions are directly answerable to their members, even if that power is not any better than a small shareholder at a general meeting. Where employees aren't treated well, however, it is important that the union is there to protect employment conditions.

Au contraire, the real world doesn't work like that. Last year, the teacher's in a province within my country took industrial action in the form of work to rule. Thus, extracurricular activities were effectively scaled down. It was up to the teachers to decide whether their extracurricular activity continued or did not continue.

Now, this was the first step towards strike (which did not happen, an agreeable solution was reached) however, talk of strike was going around. Many teachers did not want to strike, but felt that they would have to support their union because the whole idea behind a union is that united we stand, divided we fall.

Now, according to your views, these teachers could just have broken from their union and formed another one... but how would this benefit the teachers as a whole? It would not.

Thus, the idea that employees can break from their unions to form another one is actually quite contrary to the whole idea of labour unions.

Therefore, some regulations do need to be formed to govern the unions and make sure that it is working for the good of the employees, but this proposal does not allow for such legislation as it would be interfering with union processes.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

How is it unrealistic? Where a union ceases to provide its members a sufficient service, they can simply depart from the union. The resolution at vote allows them to make that choice without concerning themselves with whether or not to be a member. It does not enforce compulsory unionism, and doesn't require unions to be promoted. It allows them to exist without employee interference against their members because of their membership.[/quote]

A closed shop is compulsory unionism, you don't have to belong but you do have to pay union dues without the benefit of voting. A open shop IS NOT compulsry unionism. In the closed shop your dues are automatically taken of your paycheck and given to the Union, where is your FREEDOM?

How is it unrealistic? Where a union ceases to provide its members a sufficient service, they can simply depart from the union. The resolution at vote allows them to make that choice without concerning themselves with whether or not to be a member. It does not enforce compulsory unionism, and doesn't require unions to be promoted. It allows them to exist without employee interference against their members because of their membership.[/quote]

It is very realistic, the proposal does not include closed shops where the laborers are forced to join unions by paying of dues. Anyone looking for power will see this oversight and exploit it. That forces the laborer to either join the union or to find another job, but the union will still run the shop without the influence of non-union workers. Futher more this will lead to the superunions as they uninhibeted by the Goverments to undermine the managment staff.

Further more I might want to remind thoes in the USA, that during WWII the unions specially the docks of New York were run by the mafia. I see no freedoms that the mafia gives to thoes that oppose the union. Can anyone promise that this type of corruption will not continue. I see no intervention to the unions as they might increase in power. No check and balance if you will.

In Australia, WW2, the unions ran the docks. When loading vital equipment for troops overseas one day (the process overseen by American soldiers in this case as it was an American ship) the dock workers put down their tools at 5pm to go home, the ship unloaded. The Lieutenant on duty asked where they were going.

"Home" the Union dock-workers replied.
"You are going home, when your countrymen bleed and die on foreign shores for YOUR freedom?" asked the Lieutenant, incredulously.
"Yes, it's 5pm, knock off time" replied the Unionists.

The American Lieutenant produced his weapon and he and his fellow troops held the unionists at gun point while they had them load the ship.

Alot of Australians really don't like Unions, and it's because of incidents much like that through the past. Unions may have once served a purpose but these days they are nothing but pathetic and corrupt, and it's been that way for DECADES.

Last year, the teacher's in a province within my country took industrial action in the form of work to rule.

As well, teachers unions have bought paid ads (from union members dues, without prior approval) to actively agitate against the government because the union didnt like the government in power.

So let's see...non governmental involvement in union governance, and yet the union can spend the members dues in orchestrating political propaganda against the government. :roll: And no, individual members CANNOT say that their dues cannot go to political agitation or to financially support a socialist party endorsed by the union leadership. The Baron prop knows the party in which I speak. :wink:

As to the 'work to rule', it meant that since coaching the football team isnt part of their Collective Agreement, NO football season...since the Collective Agreement stated specific hours of work, NO after school chess club or computer club. And NO teacher was going to risk the wrath of peer exclusion ( ie: break the work to rule = scab). So the power of the teachers union leadership is VERY powerful. So much for 'doing it for the kids'.

Is this resolution stepping out of UN jurisdiction? Do human rights resolutions, as annoying as they may be, step out of UN jurisdiction?

Choose either yes or no and the answer will apply to both questions. Why? Because this resolution is a human rights resolution. Maybe, you think it harms human rights or that it doesn't benefit human rights but that doesn't change the fact that it is a human rights resolution.

Vote "for" or "against", I don't care, but vote for the right reason.

As a former union member I was not to think for myself but a V.P.and 2 stewards told they will make decisions for me for the best interest for all. So I should be a dumb robot , do as I'm told without questioning? I'm also a Vet who believes in FREEDOM ,which I consider a responsibility. So as to being responsible as a union member ,I believe I should be able to think and make intelligent decisions based on fact and known information presented, not what those in the union leadership would have me do. I see no rights for the single union member in this resolution only for the union as a whole. Just another point to be considered.

Last year, the teacher's in a province within my country took industrial action in the form of work to rule.

As well, teachers unions have bought paid ads (from union members dues, without prior approval) to actively agitate against the government because the union didnt like the government in power.

So let's see...non governmental involvement in union governance, and yet the union can spend the members dues in orchestrating political propaganda against the government. :roll: And no, individual members CANNOT say that their dues cannot go to political agitation or to financially support a socialist party endorsed by the union leadership. The Baron prop knows the party in which I speak. :wink:

As to the 'work to rule', it meant that since coaching the football team isnt part of their Collective Agreement, NO football season...since the Collective Agreement stated specific hours of work, NO after school chess club or computer club. And NO teacher was going to risk the wrath of peer exclusion ( ie: break the work to rule = scab). So the power of the teachers union leadership is VERY powerful. So much for 'doing it for the kids'.

While I do not support the legistlation at hand I must take exception to your "logic" whether you like it or not, sometimes "doing it for the kids" means taking into account the long run. For example, this year might lose out on clubs, etc. but in the future, class sizes might be capped to a size that is more useful to all future groups of students. Don't believe for a second that just because the immediate year doesn't get what it wants that subsequent years can't benefit. Also... this is a job, just like any other. As a result, the people working have the right to look for benefits and increases just like anyone else. Part of the problem with education is that people constantly believe that because teachers care about the kids it is justification to grab them by the short and curly's to make them feel bad about what is going on. Most vocations would not take nearly the beating that teachers do without some job actions... teachers often sit back and accept more because they do care about their charges. It is tiring to hear about so many individuals who have sat on one side of the desk and therefore believe they are experts on what it is like to be on the other.

Ambrose of Abrizza

Work out what human rights are. This is NOT a human rights issue.

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Carmarthen's Translation: Be nice to each other, you're all the same species.

2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Carmarthen's Translation: You all get to have these rights, being human. Yes, even those parts of humanity that are female or another colour.

3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Carmarthen's Translation: No killing, raping, assaulting or capturing people unlawfully. This means you, bub.

4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Carmarthen's Translation: Slavery is illegal. Simple, eh?

5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Carmarthen's Translation: No torturing! Naughty Iraq, Naughty! Hm... degrading treatment... I think a few of my ex's qualify for human rights abuse...

6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law

Carmarthen's Translation: You're all under the law, not above it. This even means UNIONS.

7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Carmarthen's Translation: No one gets special treatment or harsher treatment. Even unions.

8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Carmarthen's Translation: You have the right to your rights.

9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile

Carmarthen's Translation: This means no "Hm, I'll arrest people wearing yellow, today..."

10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Carmarthen's Translation: Simple enough. I wonder how often it really happens...

11. a. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
b. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Carmarthen's Translation: Innocent until guilty. Not guilty of a crime if it wasn't a crime when you did it. Hm.

12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

Carmarthen's Translation: Right to privacy.

13. a. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
b. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Carmarthen's Translation: There are restrictions, of course, on these things. Like if you're Michael Jackson at the moment.

14. a. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
b. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Carmarthen's Translation: Note the GENUINELY ARISING bit.

15. a. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
b. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Carmarthen's Translation: Simple enough? I guess that means if you try to say someone is Un-American then you're abusing their human rights... or, say, holding them in an Army prison when they're a foreign citizen without evidence or releasing them to their country of origin.

16. a. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
b. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
c. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Carmarthen's Translation: Note it doesn't say that it has to be a male/female marraige. Means gay couples have the right to get married...?

17. a. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
b. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Carmarthen's Translation: Stop, thief!

18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance

Carmarthen's Translation: Does this mean I can't make fun of Unitarians anymore? Nuts!

19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Carmarthen's Translation: So stop flaming people :P

20. a. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
b. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Carmarthen's Translation: So you can't make people join a union... happens, though.

21. a. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
b. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
c. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Carmarthen's Translation: Zimbabwe, anyone?

22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Carmarthen's Translation: Basically you're allowed to do your thang.

23. a. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
b. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
c. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
d. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Carmarthen's Translation: According to the RL UN you can FORM and JOIN a trade union for your protection of your interests. That's a long step short of THIS proposal. You have the human right to form a union for the protection of your interests, but all that other stuff? Nuh uh.

24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay

Carmarthen's Translation: Weekends off!

25. a. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
b. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Carmarthen's Translation: Family/Baby stuff. It's why Social Services exist. You'll note it does say "beyond his control"

26. a. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
b. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
c. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Carmarthen's Translation: You'll note it says at elementary and fundamental stages, not College or University. Gotta pay for the higher education.

27. a. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
b. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Carmarthen's Translation: Hm... if I get to share in scientific advances.. I want the UN to buy me an XBox...

28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Carmarthen's Translation: Nuff said.

29. a. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
b. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
c. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Carmarthen's Translation: Worth noting. You're still subject to the law.

30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Carmarthen's Translation: No twisting the stuff in here to go against the purpose.

Carmarthen's Summary: According to the REAL WORLD UN - remember, just because the real world has these things doesn't mean NS will! - you have the right to form and join a union. There is NOTHING about the Union having the right to non-interference or being allowed to form international Unions or ANYTHING like that. The ONLY real Economic mentions are two - the right to form a union to protect your interests (and that's IT on Unions) and the right to fair pay without discrimination. The rest of the points are all based on imprisonment, arrest, slavery, self determination etc etc.

Want to see where I got this? http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

While I do not support the legistlation at hand I must take exception to your "logic" whether you like it or not, sometimes "doing it for the kids" means taking into account the long run. For example, this year might lose out on clubs, etc. but in the future, class sizes might be capped to a size that is more useful to all future groups of students. Don't believe for a second that just because the immediate year doesn't get what it wants that subsequent years can't benefit. Also... this is a job, just like any other. As a result, the people working have the right to look for benefits and increases just like anyone else. Part of the problem with education is that people constantly believe that because teachers care about the kids it is justification to grab them by the short and curly's to make them feel bad about what is going on. Most vocations would not take nearly the beating that teachers do without some job actions... teachers often sit back and accept more because they do care about their charges. It is tiring to hear about so many individuals who have sat on one side of the desk and therefore believe they are experts on what it is like to be on the other.
Ambrose of Abrizza


Well, where do I start? My wife is a teacher and so you can 'take exception to my logic' in whatever way you want. And spare me about class sizes being capped. :roll: The latest govenment while during the election promised caps, but looky looky, as soon as they won the election, "oops, maybe we cant cap class sizes" suddenly comes out of their lips. Big surprise there, as the funding needed, as well as the physical structures could not support such a claim. To claim class caps when a school building holds 500 students can only mean portables!!! And given the fact we have just had a debacle of mold/fungus infested EXISTING portables really shows that caps in and of themselves are NOT the answer.

One major flaw in your argument, and it came out in your discourse was a confusion of two different terms and words, and yet you seem to use them interchangably, while in fact they are two distinct ways of being/thinking...namely "job" and "vocation"

QUOTE: "Also... this is a job, just like any other. .... Most vocations would not take nearly the beating that teachers do without some job actions..."

Sorry, but a job is a meal ticket, where a vocation is a life-long, total personal commitment. Look in the dictionary.

vo·ca·tion
n.
A regular occupation, especially one for which a person is particularly suited or qualified.
An inclination, as if in response to a summons, to undertake a certain kind of work, especially a religious career; a calling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English vocacioun, divine call to a religious life, from Old French vocation, from Latin vocti, voctin-, a calling, from voctus, past participle of vocre, to call. See wekw- in Indo-European Roots.]


job
n.
A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
A position in which one is employed.

So in conclusion, I am not someone 'sitting behind the desk' as you put it. My wife is a teacher and to her it is a vocation NOT a job; forming and developing young minds is not and cannot be a simple 8-4 "job". It is what she is 'called' to do. And to say 'work to rule' HELPS children?? What planet are you on?? Are you telling me that differences cannot be worked out during the summer break or that logical minds cannot see that depriving children of after school activities diminishes the children as people or that they can not see naked power grubbing when they see it? Kids are not stupid. The fact is the only ones that suffer in a teacher/board struggle are the children. And when you say "so what its only a year or two without extra-curricular activities" shows how narrow you are: how many kids will fall afoul of the law because they have nothing else to do without school events? or what about school sports members who, because there is no school sports, not receive that college scholarship they desperately need for higher education?

I am sure you mean well, but from where I sit, the only losers in school disputes are the kids.

"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 and I believe you will see that I'm correct. I encourage all to vote against this resolution.

My problem with this resolution is thus:

This resolution makes no allowances for workers whose jobs are too important to the well-being of a nation to allow the government to force them to work. If this resolution passes, a union of, oh, say, postal workers, or airline employees, or prison guards, or whatever would be allowed to strike, disregading the fact that it would put our country in chaos.

TYB is a very worker-friendly nation, and one that whole-heartedly embraced personal and civic freedoms, but, to be blunt, the government has to be able to force employees back to work when it's necessary for the country to function, and this resolution, if passed, would outlaw that. Such "necessary" professions would be able to hold this Sword of Damocles over corporations and government.

After a period of frustration, TYB has been a fervent and supportive UN member, but, unfortunate as it may be, we would have to leave the UN if this passes, as it has the possibility of sending our nation into chaos.

- TYB/UN Ambassador Patrick Ewing

My problem with this resolution is thus:

This resolution makes no allowances for workers whose jobs are too important to the well-being of a nation to allow the government to force them to work. If this resolution passes, a union of, oh, say, postal workers, or airline employees, or prison guards, or whatever would be allowed to strike, disregading the fact that it would put our country in chaos.

TYB is a very worker-friendly nation, and one that whole-heartedly embraced personal and civic freedoms, but, to be blunt, the government has to be able to force employees back to work when it's necessary for the country to function, and this resolution, if passed, would outlaw that. Such "necessary" professions would be able to hold this Sword of Damocles over corporations and government.

After a period of frustration, TYB has been a fervent and supportive UN member, but, unfortunate as it may be, we would have to leave the UN if this passes, as it has the possibility of sending our nation into chaos.

- TYB/UN Ambassador Patrick Ewing

While my nation already has laws which guarantee workers the right to organize, bargain collectively, and strike, it is not for the United Nations to dictate to members the manner of the internal organization of their nation.

Moreover, even nations which guarantee such rights to private sector workers may forbid strikes by public employees or forbid unionization altogether by members of the military.

My problem with this resolution is thus:

This resolution makes no allowances for workers whose jobs are too important to the well-being of a nation to allow the government to force them to work.

Why is that a valid reason for denying individual rights.

What would you do if, instead of striking, they all decided to quit en masse? Would you FORCE them to work?

That's called "slavery", buster.

How can we let such a resolution pass? Not only does this resolution contridict itself in language, it also has no place on the UN docket. Many nations have already set up their own laws reguarding the issue.. allowing their economy to florish or fail based on that descion. No one knows the economic situation of any given nation better than the ruler themselves. Implementing such a resolution could very possibly throw many nations in to economic chaos just because they are a member of the UN. If this resolution passes, I will seriously have to consider resigning from the UN.... even though my nation has not even been a member for 24 hrs yet!

Vote no on the Labor Union resolution!

My problem with this resolution is thus:

This resolution makes no allowances for workers whose jobs are too important to the well-being of a nation to allow the government to force them to work.

Why is that a valid reason for denying individual rights.

What would you do if, instead of striking, they all decided to quit en masse? Would you FORCE them to work?

That's called "slavery", buster.

If you piss off your army (which I'm assuming counts for workers whose jobs are too importante) so much that the all want to quite en masse, you'll probably have a military coup to worry about.

If you don't want people to strike, make those people sign a contract waiving that right when they come work for you. I'm assuming you do that with soldiers?

Unions for mutual representation are all fine and good, except when we realize that strikes and other union tactics drag industrial efficiency into subterranean levels, and are weapons for massively destroying economies when the industries being struck are water, food, transportation, telecom, etc...

Set minimum wage laws or basic workers rights. These are objective and unbiased ways of helping out a working class. Just don't put the power of determining what is fair in the hands of unions (a clearly biased entity).

Your economies will burn.

Should this pass, unions will be allowed in Corinto, but any form of strike or economic interference will be considered illegal, and swift punishment will be dealt (i.e. shot in the back of the head).

C-G Grim
FoC

My problem with this resolution is thus:

This resolution makes no allowances for workers whose jobs are too important to the well-being of a nation to allow the government to force them to work.

Why is that a valid reason for denying individual rights.

What would you do if, instead of striking, they all decided to quit en masse? Would you FORCE them to work?

That's called "slavery", buster.

You're telling me you would allow your police departments, fire departments, airlines, railroads, postal workers, and prison guards the possibility of going on strike even if doing so would plunge the country into utter chaos? That you feel the right to strike has to be protected even at the expense of a total collapse of government?

Absent a contract with their employers explicitly stating that they cannot go on strike, of course! They do not exist to serve the state--they exist to serve their own ends. They must be free to pursue those ends as they see fit (with the obvious restrictions on violence and fraud), even if they're wrong.

The voting period has finished for the latest UN Proposal entitled 'Rights of Labour Unions' in Europe, and the voting ends with 58% against the Proposal. The general concensus of those against appears that the proposal infringes to much on a nation's sovereignty or give too much power to the unions.

Thank you
Nendeln - UN Delegate for Europe

"It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations."- NationStates UN "Charter"

How does this resolution violate the UN charter.

This resolution would expand on the real world human rights declaration. If labor unions are included in that document than this resolution is an issue of human rights and the only question is whether unions should have these rights.

I don't really comprehend strikes, especially in a well-liked job, like teaching in a pleasant suburb. If a whole group of people strike because they want more money/oppurtunities/anything, fire them, and hire new people. This wouldn't work of course, if nobody else was available to replace them, then you'd be toast. But then they'd be out of a job. It would be lose-lose, unless they didn't strike altogether.

Find my post where I posted the ENTIRE REAL WORLD UN CHARTER.

The UN charter ONLY Economic points are the right to an equal wage unbiased by gender, sex etc etc and the right to FORM a union. That's IT. Nothing about legal interference, nothing about bias on the basis on belonging to a Union, nothing about rights apart from the law.

This resolution here goes beyond a human right to form a union and goes into the realms of passing a UN Law to make unions above and outside the government.

Look at clause 4 carefully. "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."

What if a union decides that one of their activities is murdering unco-operative management at the workplace. Public authorities (the cops) are not allowed to interfere. Yeah, I know that is not how it is intended, but the wording is everything when you are taking away a sovereign nation's individual rights to govern as they want. (UN)

Sorry if a viewpoint similar to this has already been expressed. Kamsaki has voted Against this resolution, for two fundamental reasons:


Firstly, this prohibits nations from making any sort of restrictions on working unions. What if a WU was to encourage the entire public transport service to go on strike for a pay increase that simply is infeasible without taking income taxes in excess of 75%? This resolution would force such a pay increase to take place, which would simply create an economic and social disaster.

Any nation would prohibit the working unions from making such demands, since the only way the group would be able to afford such a pay rise would be in a proportional increase in the workload of every employee. This is not beneficial to any party involved; it creates stress, which in effect counteracts exactly what it is the unions try to achieve.


Secondly, however, is the fact that open and complete support for the workers' union by the law-writers inevitably leads to exponential increases in the number of strikes, since the workers will begin to feel that they can get away with demands for more money through blackmailing the employers or state. In the end, nobody will end up working, because their "Needs" aren't being met. This does not work well for either capitalism or socialism; in socialism, the social order breaks down when people don't play their part, and in capitalism, such drastic measures create an economic crash that makes trade absolutely impossible.

The end result of this resolution would be complete and utter anarchy, as financial trade would cease, government would lose control, people starve from a lack of funding, sickness overwhelms as the state can no longer afford to run hospitals, and in the end the cities themselves literally collapse as maintenance or construction workers don't want to work unless the government pays them more money than actually exists.


A vote against this resolution is a vote in favour of social and economic stability.

The Dominion of Dinoponera has been forced to withdraw from the UN due to this issue. It is unlikely at this stage of the voting that the proposal will fail. My country cannot accept a resolution that will place certain organisations beyond the rule of law. Clause 4 of this proposal gives unions complete immunity from the state when carrying out union 'activities' and running their adminstration. This will mean unions are free to defraud their members, launder money, and fix elections. 'Activities' is such a vague term as to mean anything and could include all manner of criminal acts.

Free Soviets claims that this resolution is based on real world UN resolutions. If this is the case it must be very loosely based, but even if not, in the real world nations do not have a compliance ministry forcing all aspects of a resolution down their throats, unlike in Nation States.

We are saddened that we have been forced from the UN, but our country prides itself on its liberal democracy where all are equal in the eyes of the law. We cannot allow our laws and customs to be trampled on in this manner.

Whilst we urge UN members to continue to vote 'no', we also strongly advise nations opposed to this proposal to resign from the UN before it comes into force tomorrow should the voting continue as at present.

Carmarthen, since labor unions are included in the actual UN human rights declaration then clearly something dealing with labor unions is a human rights issue. The whole point of this resolution is to expand on current human rights protection of labor unions. If you think labor unions shouldn't have these rights because in your opinion it means they can kill people then don't vote for this resolution for that reason. The only thing I ask is that you vote for a reason that makes sense.

Carmarthen did vote for the right reason: And it voted against it.

If you voted for it because you beleive it's a human rights issue then YOU voted under a misconception.

I do not see any connection between Human Rights and Unions. Human rights deals with the fact of the living and breathing individual. Unions deal with the fact of organized laborers, not on how they are treated as individuals, but as a collective whole dealing with manufactoring. No where is the individual's life being threated for who or what they are.

I do not see any connection between Human Rights and Unions. Human rights deals with the fact of the living and breathing individual. Unions deal with the fact of organized laborers, not on how they are treated as individuals, but as a collective whole dealing with manufactoring. No where is the individual's life being threated for who or what they are.

The freedom of association sounds like a human right to me.

Remember, the right to unionize doesn't guarentee that you will get any concessions. You will probably get some, but the right itself only guarentees that you will have the right to unionize. Therefore it is a human rights issue.

This bill again is not specific enough. What if medical workers went on strike and then there was a terrible break out of some disease? We should be able to force those people back to work.

Moriwen's got it right.

My question is if there seem to be so many people against it... why in the world is it winning?

And Zoltask... you must live in Ontario... LOL

I think Zoltask covered what I was going to say... so go look up his post :D

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

My question is if there seem to be so many people against it... why in the world is it winning?
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

People are stupid.

Wow...I'm a sage... lol.

I do not see any connection between Human Rights and Unions. Human rights deals with the fact of the living and breathing individual. Unions deal with the fact of organized laborers, not on how they are treated as individuals, but as a collective whole dealing with manufactoring. No where is the individual's life being threated for who or what they are.

The freedom of association sounds like a human right to me.

Remember, the right to unionize doesn't guarentee that you will get any concessions. You will probably get some, but the right itself only guarentees that you will have the right to unionize. Therefore it is a human rights issue.

You might want to check that again buddy, Human rights is not for the right of assembly that is a goverment choice to give its people.