NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe in freedom and responsibility of the people and the institutions they set up. People have the right to form unions of any kind, whether it be labor or a tennis club. However, people have the right to start their own private enterprise to how they see fit. Whether that enterprise succeeds or not is ultimately up to the collective will of the populous. How does this fit into the UN resolution? Basically, if we truly trust the will of the people, we will realize that this resolution is unnecessary. Let say that a company decides to fire striking workers and hires scabs. The fired workers can make an effort to convince the populous to take their business elsewhere. Once that business sees that it had made an unpopular decision and is losing money, the workers win! The little guys win without any side losing their freedom of speech. It takes work, but everything does! People must take responsibility for all decisions in life and must realize that life isn't fair. If they don't want to put the effort into making something of themselves, they deserve to be trampled on.

Basically vote against this resolution, its needless government meddling in private affairs.

Well-stated. The same freedom of association that gives unions the right to exist gives employers the right to fire (i.e. to not associate with) workers (as long as there is no contract binding them). You destroy one, and you set a precedent that can easily be used to destroy the other.

Well-stated. The same freedom of association that gives unions the right to exist gives employers the right to fire (i.e. to not associate with) workers (as long as there is no contract binding them). You destroy one, and you set a precedent that can easily be used to destroy the other.

The legislation protects freedom of association, it does not undermine it. It does nothing to undermine the freedom of association of employer groups which are of at least equal power. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents an employee from being fired, or even preventing the entire body of employees being fired.

The resolution is a protection of freedom of association.

Well-stated. The same freedom of association that gives unions the right to exist gives employers the right to fire (i.e. to not associate with) workers (as long as there is no contract binding them). You destroy one, and you set a precedent that can easily be used to destroy the other.

The legislation protects freedom of association, it does not undermine it. It does nothing to undermine the freedom of association of employer groups which are of at least equal power. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents an employee from being fired, or even preventing the entire body of employees being fired.

The resolution is a protection of freedom of association.

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.

We don't give most associations that kind of leeway.

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.

Private employers have the right to discriminate however the hell they want. In fact, employment itself is discrimination. It discriminates against unqualified people.

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.

It isn't freedom of association once the government gets involved.

Besides, just look at the category of the resolution. If it were Human Rights, I could understand someone arguing that it futhers free association. But it's Social Justice. Clearly this resolution seeks to give unfair advantages to one type of nominally free association which undermines the freedom of association of all.

The UN should have no right to interfere with how nations choose to run their respective economies. Whether it is a capitalist paradise or a socialist welfare state, governments should have the right to set up their own economic systems. Plus, the UN is very biased to labor friendly resolutions. May I ask, what drives the force of most major economies? :?: Capitalism :!: Private enterprise gives the small business owner or small investor, not just the big corporation the ability to attain great wealth. By giving labor unions too much power and supporting socialism, the UN is interfering with the people's ability to succeed financially and for the global economy to grow.

The UN should have no right to interfere with how nations choose to run their respective economies. Whether it is a capitalist paradise or a socialist welfare state, governments should have the right to set up their own economic systems. Plus, the UN is very biased to labor friendly resolutions. May I ask, what drives the force of most major economies? :?: Capitalism :!: Private enterprise gives the small business owner or small investor, not just the big corporation the ability to attain great wealth. By giving labor unions too much power and supporting socialism, the UN is interfering with the people's ability to succeed financially and for the global economy to grow.

The UN has the right to intervene when it promotes liberty [of all].

Unfortunately, this resolution detracts from it.

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.

We don't give most associations that kind of leeway.


I think you'll find that the most interference a corporation has is so called "Replaceable rules". In other words, you can set up a corporation whichever way you think you like that's going to raise you the capital you want. The corporation still has to comply with the law however, and the same applies for the unions in this resolution.

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.

Private employers have the right to discriminate however the hell they want. In fact, employment itself is discrimination. It discriminates against unqualified people.


Discriminatory employment is not prevented by the legislation, only discriminating on the basis of union membership is, such that employees cannot be sacked for being a union member - freedom of association.

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.

It isn't freedom of association once the government gets involved.

Besides, just look at the category of the resolution. If it were Human Rights, I could understand someone arguing that it futhers free association. But it's Social Justice. Clearly this resolution seeks to give unfair advantages to one type of nominally free association which undermines the freedom of association of all.

The mediation is completely separate from freedom of association. It is a means of preventing either group from taking up a position of unequal power and abusing that. It protects employers as equally as it protects unions.

Social justice is where freedom of association belongs. To take away a persons freedom of association is against social justice, a persons right to fit in with society, not with "human rights". The category is perfectly appropriate.

The UN should have no right to interfere with how nations choose to run their respective economies. Whether it is a capitalist paradise or a socialist welfare state, governments should have the right to set up their own economic systems. Plus, the UN is very biased to labor friendly resolutions. May I ask, what drives the force of most major economies? :?: Capitalism :!: Private enterprise gives the small business owner or small investor, not just the big corporation the ability to attain great wealth. By giving labor unions too much power and supporting socialism, the UN is interfering with the people's ability to succeed financially and for the global economy to grow.

The UN has the right to intervene when it promotes liberty [of all].

Unfortunately, this resolution detracts from it.

The resolution protects a limited class of freedom of association, it doesn't take away any person's liberty.

I think you'll find that the most interference a corporation has is so called "Replaceable rules". In other words, you can set up a corporation whichever way you think you like that's going to raise you the capital you want. The corporation still has to comply with the law however, and the same applies for the unions in this resolution.

All corporations are essentially set up the same. You put money into a company with the hope of getting a reward.

Discriminatory employment is not prevented by the legislation, only discriminating on the basis of union membership is, such that employees cannot be sacked for being a union member - freedom of association.

Why is that freedom of association? If I don't like people in Unions, then I have the right not to associate with them. Isn't that freedom of association? Freedom of association means that you are free to associate. Unfortunately, other people have that same right.

The mediation is completely separate from freedom of association. It is a means of preventing either group from taking up a position of unequal power and abusing that. It protects employers as equally as it protects unions.

The mediation is done by the State. This means that the freedom of associations is violated because the State is telling associations how they can and cannot bargain.

Social justice is where freedom of association belongs. To take away a persons freedom of association is against social justice, a persons right to fit in with society, not with "human rights". The category is perfectly appropriate.

A person doesn't have the right to fit in with society. He doesn't have the right to force others to be his friends. He does, however, have the right to befriend others given that others are willing to do the same. The freedom of association is no more a social justice issue than free speech is.

If you think so, then you aren't thinking of freedom of association at all, you're thinking of special privileges for certain associations and therefore the 'right' to enslave.

The UN should have no right to interfere with how nations choose to run their respective economies. Whether it is a capitalist paradise or a socialist welfare state, governments should have the right to set up their own economic systems. Plus, the UN is very biased to labor friendly resolutions. May I ask, what drives the force of most major economies? :?: Capitalism :!: Private enterprise gives the small business owner or small investor, not just the big corporation the ability to attain great wealth. By giving labor unions too much power and supporting socialism, the UN is interfering with the people's ability to succeed financially and for the global economy to grow.

The UN has the right to intervene when it promotes liberty [of all].

Unfortunately, this resolution detracts from it.

The resolution protects a limited class of freedom of association, it doesn't take away any person's liberty.

No it gives a specific class of association special privileges. Since the rights-privileges game is zero-sum (or negative-sum in a dictatorship), this means that other associations will lose. Therefore, their rights are violated. What is it Jefferson said? [paraphrase], "democracy is equal rights for all and special privileges for NONE."

If you are the member of a Union and your employer doesn't like unions he has the right not to associate with you! (unless there's a contract). That's called freedom of association! If you moonlight as a porn star and your boss doesn't like porn stars, he has the right to fire you too! That's also called freedom of association!

I think you'll find that the most interference a corporation has is so called "Replaceable rules". In other words, you can set up a corporation whichever way you think you like that's going to raise you the capital you want. The corporation still has to comply with the law however, and the same applies for the unions in this resolution.

All corporations are essentially set up the same. You put money into a company with the hope of getting a reward.

Discriminatory employment is not prevented by the legislation, only discriminating on the basis of union membership is, such that employees cannot be sacked for being a union member - freedom of association.

Why is that freedom of association? If I don't like people in Unions, then I have the right not to associate with them. Isn't that freedom of association? Freedom of association means that you are free to associate. Unfortunately, other people have that same right.

The mediation is completely separate from freedom of association. It is a means of preventing either group from taking up a position of unequal power and abusing that. It protects employers as equally as it protects unions.

The mediation is done by the State. This means that the freedom of associations is violated because the State is telling associations how they can and cannot bargain.

Social justice is where freedom of association belongs. To take away a persons freedom of association is against social justice, a persons right to fit in with society, not with "human rights". The category is perfectly appropriate.

A person doesn't have the right to fit in with society. He doesn't have the right to force others to be his friends. He does, however, have the right to befriend others given that others are willing to do the same. The freedom of association is no more a social justice issue than free speech is.

If you think so, then you aren't thinking of freedom of association at all, you're thinking of special privileges for certain associations and therefore the 'right' to enslave.

Corporations are set up by promoters who seek investors to put their money into the corporation. Provided the corporation does not breach the law that corporation can be set up without interference. A poorly set up corporation that does not protect shareholder interests will not be subscribed to.

Freedom of association - freedom to be a member of an association, or not to be a member of an association without interference from religious wackos (or employers).

Meidation is not binding. Mediation only is useful to break a deadlock. Where parties attempt to force the other (as employers or unions have been known to do) then the government can simply help parties negotiate. The parties can walk away from the negotiation table.

Your understanding of freedom of association is wrong, as already stated.

The resolution protects a limited class of freedom of association, it doesn't take away any person's liberty.

No it gives a specific class of association special privileges. Since the rights-privileges game is zero-sum (or negative-sum in a dictatorship), this means that other associations will lose. Therefore, their rights are violated. What is it Jefferson said? [paraphrase], "democracy is equal rights for all and special privileges for NONE."

If you are the member of a Union and your employer doesn't like unions he has the right not to associate with you! (unless there's a contract). That's called freedom of association! If you moonlight as a porn star and your boss doesn't like porn stars, he has the right to fire you too! That's also called freedom of association!

The resolution grants no special privileges apart from the freedom to choose whether or not to belong to an association or not, without interference. This is hardly a special privilege. If there are any special privileges it belongs to the employer as the party that is capable of denying an employee their livelihood on a whim.

Big Business already has more freedom of speech than any other sector in many societies. In many countries, Big Business OWNS all the media outlets.

If you really think this resolution is going to lead to some kind of world-wide Communist Revolution, you are approaching the same fervor of hardline Communists who believe in inevitable worldwide proletarian revolutions. Whether held by ardent believers or ardent reactionaries, such talk ignores that politics and economics are a series of compormises and inherent power strugggles.

Monopoly of either political or economic power is bad for everyone. In a world in which big business already has most of the power, this resolution simply seeks to create a more workable balance.

Freedom of association - freedom to be a member of an association, or not to be a member of an association without interference from religious wackos (or employers).

False. Freedom of association means you will not be put in jail for associating with certain people.

What you fail to realize is that ALL humans (except those who have initiated the use of fraud or physical force against another's person or property) enjoy this right--be it an employee, in which case he can join a union, or an employer, in which case he can refuse to associate with a union member by refusing to keep him in his employ.

The freedom of association protects one's membership in any organization that is not involved in criminal activity.

Jeremy Bentham in his treatise Fragments on Government, (1776) wrote that governments are free that recognize: "The liberty of public association; or the security with which malcontents may communicate their sentiments, concert their plans, and practice every mode of opposition short of actual revolt, before the executive power can be legally justified in disturbing them."

Thomas Paine in his The Rights of Man (1791) wrote that "The end of all political associations is, the preservation of the rights of man, which rights are liberty, property, and security; that the nation is the source of all sovereignty derived from it... ."

- This just means that people can't be arrested for gathering. Nothing about Corporations hiring/firing based on association.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized a constitutionally protected right of association as a means of guaranteeing the rights of individuals who protested during the civil rights movement.

The high court was late in recognizing the same protection for Communist Party and Ku Klux Klan membership roles -- as it had for members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

- There we see, again, that people can't be arrested just for being ina group that's seen as distasteful or evil. Nothing about Companies.

"Associational rights were heavily litigated throughout the 1940s and 1950s, usually involving a person's membership in the Communist party or in organizations considered subversive to the national interest. For a time, these memberships were punished by the government." _Louis Fisher, American Constitutional Law. p. 537. McGraw-Hill, 1990

- Here the U.S Government decided to enact controls on the type of Association.

There is nothing in "Freedom of Association" that says an Employer can't discriminate against someone in a Union - and heck, this is US Laws, and our nations AREN'T the USA. Some of the Nations DON'T allow freedom of association at all, so get off the argument. This isn't the USA, Freedom of Association ISN'T an inaliable right.

Next person to mention freedom of association is going to get such a pinch...

People need freedom of association and unions are best prepared to offer that. People need to matter before business in all matters.

People need freedom of association and unions are best prepared to offer that. People need to matter before business in all matters.

Businesses are [gasp] a type of free association!

All of you stop bringing up free associations! All it means is that you can hang with whatever crowd you want providing you don't do anything illegal, and not every nation on EARTH, let alone NationStates, has provision for free association.

There is no specific allowance in free association for unions. Free association has to do with being allowed to belong to a group like the Nazi Party or the Communist Party or a Union without being arrested just for that reason alone.

It ISN'T the right to be employed, union or not. Some countries have equal opportunity laws that prohibit specific hiring or firing because of or because of the lack of a union membership, however.