NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

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.

If the unions can write their own rules, and no one can discriminate against them, that means that they ask for anything they want and they are legally obligated to get it. We can't let this bill pass.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't this essentially saying that unions are above the law?!

Combined with number 7, that is the reading that makes most sense to Plebianika's lawyers, and also those of Plasmonia's UN delegate Einvalis.

There can be no national law demanding, for example, an independent audit of the accounts of trade unions. Or demanding that elections should be subject to scrutiny. This would make them subject to corruption and increase risks of unions being removed from the control of those who they are meant to benefit.

Yet another well intentioned rule is so badly written as to make it unacceptable.

Plebianika urges all those who are thinging of approving this motion to reconsider and urges those who drafted the resolution to reconsider the wording.

Vote Against for social justice, vote against for the benefit of real unions.

The Plebianikan Ambassador
On behalf of the Government of Plebianika.

The language talks about organizing and formulating, not administering or managing. It seems external audits and similar controls would be permissible.

Collaboration, it doesn't matter if it "seems external audits are similar controls would be permissible," because the proposal has to be taken word for word. This has been Jurian States biggest concern about the current proposal, yes it seems to have good intent in mind but its wording allows for others to misuse this proposal to support corruption. Jurian States also believes that it would be better for the UN to let nations keep control of how they handle and deal with both Union and Corporations since the individual nations will know what is fair pay for their people not the UN, what international-corporations and international-unions are a threat to their economy not the UN and how many jobs a business to outsource before endangering the economy and not the UN. Besides individual nations can act in a quicker manner when resolving labor and business issues than the UN because unlike the UN their political leaders usually share a common interest with their people and can be removed by their citizens which is something their citizens can't to a corrupt foreign power.

If the unions can write their own rules, and no one can discriminate against them, that means that they ask for anything they want and they are legally obligated to get it. We can't let this bill pass.

Suppose your steelworkers' union is trying to negotiate a new contract. They have a list of things they want. Because of clause 4 of this resolution they have been able to freely decide amongst themselves what they would try to get. And it turns out that they want to be proclaimed to collectively be Czar Alexander. Your steel industry bosses look at that demand and laugh. Your union goes on strike. Your steel industry does not have to give up and declare them all Czar Alexander. They can say "fine, go strike." This proposal doesn't even stop them from hiring scabs. All clause 5 says is that they can't just fire all the union workers for striking or refuse to hire them in the first place for being union members.
AFoFS UN Proposal

If the unions can write their own rules, and no one can discriminate against them, that means that they ask for anything they want and they are legally obligated to get it. We can't let this bill pass.

Suppose your steelworkers' union is trying to negotiate a new contract. They have a list of things they want. Because of clause 4 of this resolution they have been able to freely decide amongst themselves what they would try to get. And it turns out that they want to be proclaimed to collectively be Czar Alexander. Your steel industry bosses look at that demand and laugh. Your union goes on strike. Your steel industry does not have to give up and declare them all Czar Alexander. They can say "fine, go strike." This proposal doesn't even stop them from hiring scabs. All clause 5 says is that they can't just fire all the union workers for striking or refuse to hire them in the first place for being union members.
AFoFS UN Proposal You know we wouldn't be having this huge debate if you just worded the proposal like you did above.

But that's not what it means. They wrote it so that it would look like it meant that, but could be interpreted to mean things much worse.

You know we wouldn't be having this huge debate if you just worded the proposal like you did above.

It was mostly taken directly from several RL international labor conventions that have been ratified by over 100 RL nations.

We firmly believe that we would be having this huge debate no matter what the resolution said as long as it was still about unions. Our nation has been receiving threats of war due to this - and it is certainly not war over the wording being vague. Many nations feel very threatened by the thought of regular people having the ability to collectively organize themselves and stand up for their rights and their human dignity. The idea of not being in absolute control of their population scares them. Good.
AFoFS UN Council

All clause 5 says is that they can't just fire all the union workers for striking or refuse to hire them in the first place for being union members.

And therein lies the problem, because that clause grants special privileges to one group at the expense of the individual rights of another--something that can NEVER be justified.

All clause 5 says is that they can't just fire all the union workers for striking or refuse to hire them in the first place for being union members.
AFoFS UN Proposal

But that's the problem. The easiest way to avoid union rules that would be at too much of a cost to the company is to not hire union workers. The union makes the rules, that's clause 4. The union has the company's interests in mind as little or less than the company has its workers' interests in mind, especially since the workers can strike and the company, because of clause 5, can't do the equivalent.