NationStates Jolt Archive

The Schopenhauerist Republic of Pilot
UN Diplomatic Courier

Message for NationStates UN members:

I plead to you to vote against the current resolution. While Pilot is a firm believer in social welfare and workers' rights, we do not believe in a organization dictating to us when our national laws can and cannot be enforced.

"7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution. Laws that contradict these guarantees shall not be created or enforced."

We would suspect that you wouldn't want it either. Please vote against this resolution.

AnteNicea would urge every member Nation to vote AGAINST the current Labor Union Proposal! While AnteNicea has always upheld the workers rights to act collectively within the work place it has also safe-guarded the rights of the individual workers to determine the nature of their relationship with their employers for the betterment of themselves and their families. Furthermore the rights of the employers must be safe garded as well. Business does not exist to provide a living for those it employs. Entrepreneurship is not a social program!! It is the driving force that allows for all freedom loving nations to prosper and must be preserved. The Place for Unions is within the work place only. Every citizen of all free nations exercise their right to self determination within the Ballot Box each one making their own decisions for the future of their families and thier nation. That right should never be entrusted to a small few that share but one agenda that may or may not be in the best interest of the Nation as a whole. Nor should any Free Nation allow any "special interest group" to assume the voice of the nation. That voice is heard only at the Ballot Box.
While "collectivity" may be useful for the work place the preservation of Individual Freedom is the the responsibility of each and every Free person and those who would give up that responsibility to anyone has in fact forfeit that very Freedom!
AnteNicea would STRONGLY URGE every Freedom loving Nation to vote AGAINST the current proposal befor us The personal Freedom of every one of your citizens is on the line.

I do agree and respect your opinion of not having a nation dictate to us anything about laws however i did read over the resolution suggested to us and i found nothing wrong with it and it was a very fair and reasonable suggestion....and wether we agree or not it is going to pass because there is a 3,000 vote difference in favor of the resolution, and i dont beleive that the 17,000 nations that have not voted yet are going to lean toward not letting this pass considering alot of them are not going to vote anyways and the rest will probably agree with the majority already givin in the polls so far....but good luck trying...

As a police state, labour unions are a direct threat to my grip on power. Vote against!

As an Anarcho-Syndicalists gouvernment, i vote AGAINST this resolution :
workers shouldn't organize themself in syndicate or political party.
Each worker have to do his own revolution!

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.

Abstentions are as good as a vote in its favour.

Wait a minute! ( Noob revelation here) You mean to tell me that even if a resolution gets a majority of votes cast but that count is far less than the Majority of actual votes available it PASSES?!!!

Example: 17,000 Available Votes ( UN Member Nations)

Votes For: 8,000

Votes Against 5,000

Resolution PASSES

If this is the case then we either need a resolution requiring a Majority of all Available Vote or a resolution that requires every member nation to vote of every resolution.

Wait a minute! ( Noob revelation here) You mean to tell me that even if a resolution gets a majority of votes cast but that count is far less than the Majority of actual votes available it PASSES?!!!

Example: 17,000 Available Votes ( UN Member Nations)

Votes For: 8,000

Votes Against 5,000

Resolution PASSES

If this is the case then we either need a resolution requiring a Majority of all Available Vote or a resolution that requires every member nation to vote of every resolution.

Wait a minute! ( Noob revelation here) You mean to tell me that even if a resolution gets a majority of votes cast but that count is far less than the Majority of actual votes available it PASSES?!!!

Example: 17,000 Available Votes ( UN Member Nations)

Votes For: 8,000

Votes Against 5,000

Resolution PASSES

If this is the case then we either need a resolution requiring a Majority of all Available Vote or a resolution that requires every member nation to vote of every resolution.

Let's imagine that in the near future, a new nation discovers computers and networking. Information can then be made available to everyone who has enough money to own a computer and pay fees to an ISP. Corporations, looking to reduce paperwork and clerical labour, start to put their charters, financial information, contact information, and planning data online. Suddenly, poor people don't have access to that information anymore, because the physical records are kept in Timbuktu in a storage closet. Your nation, recognising that the poor have equal rights to this information, might make a law that states that if an organisation places its bylaws, financial data, etc. online, it has to provide a free-access internet-hooked computer available to all its members at least 12 hours a day. But under this present resolution, your nation is not supposed to apply that law to the labour unions.

The poorest workers will be disenfranchised. Their fees might be used for anything, and they will never know, nor be able to review how they are being represented in the union, check to be sure the union is following its own charter, etc.

Therefore, this resolution does not constitute protection of the workers.

And therefore, Dendrys votes against.


Respectfully,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

As a violent dictatorship which strives to protect the rights of the corporation, this is a direct violation of my agenda. This amendment would pose great trouble for all sovereign nations. Vote against.

As a violent dictatorship which strives to protect the rights of the corporation, this is a direct violation of my agenda.

Then all is as it should be.
AFoFS UN Council

As an Anarcho-Syndicalists gouvernment, i vote AGAINST this resolution :
workers shouldn't organize themself in syndicate or political party.
Each worker have to do his own revolution!

What?! We think you may have missed a bit of syndicalist theory. The part about collective struggle.
AFoFS UN Council

We, the citizens of Maiway in the NationStates region, agree. WE MUST BAND TOGETHER to defeat this resolution in the UN. We do not want our national rights abridged. We, in Maiway, are constantly having to appease the unions and are sick of it. To give unions more power would be a cataclysmic mistake.
Regards,
The citizens of the Most Serene Republic of Maiway

Wait a minute! ( Noob revelation here) You mean to tell me that even if a resolution gets a majority of votes cast but that count is far less than the Majority of actual votes available it PASSES?!!!

Example: 17,000 Available Votes ( UN Member Nations)

Votes For: 8,000

Votes Against 5,000

Resolution PASSES


Yes. This is the way it is in most democratic systems.

If this is the case then we either need a resolution requiring a Majority of all Available Vote or a resolution that requires every member nation to vote of every resolution.
Either of these would be a game mechanics change, and so is not allowable as a resolution.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Pluralistic Community of Gurthark

As a new member of the UN, it frightens Chevaliers to see that the first draft resolution is one promoting the infringement of state sovereignty. If a country chooses to implement labor unions and abide by these rules they should be allowed to do so, however, any draft resolution which dictates the law of those countries who are UN members should not even be considered. The Republic of Chevaliers strongly urges all members who have not voted to carefully read the proposed resolution, and then to realize how wrong its stipulations are. Please vote AGAINST this resolution and keep yourself free.

When this resolution passes [and it probably will], I am immediately going to draft a proposal to repeal it.

I don't see the problem. It seems that many people are trying to prevent any resolution from passing no matter what.

The people decide and vote in a union if they choose to. If the companies are treating there workers right they will not be voted in.Also if the majority of workers think there union is corrupt they can deceritfy and be nonunion once again.

If companies treated there workers Fair and balanced within there would be no Unions to begin with.

Jamolia

The Commonwealth of Treeonia, herein known as Treeonia, has voted against the Labor Union Resolution as written and currently on the UN table.

Treeonia is a pro-corporate nation, and as such, find this resolution in direct oppugnancy with current national policies. While our government, both local and national, actively encourage our corporations and working class to engage in high level of communications to resolve corporate disputes or enact corporate entitlements, we cannot tolerate Unionist activities dictating policy nor bringing our economy, small as it is, to a grinding halt because of a union strike, regardless of real or perceived arguments.

We counsel our good neighbors to discourage this Resolution by submitting a vote of Nay.

May Trees bless your good fortunes.

Ambrose Woodfellow
State Department
Commonwealth of Treeonia

Pro-union, all the way! Don't scab for the Workers, or listen to their lies! The only way any of the poor folks will get a chance is if they organise! Join them on the lines, and you'll see the proud faces of the type of courage that makes nations such as ours. These men and women have sacrificed what they earn so as to make better the future of generations of workers to come. They have made vulnerable their jobs and incomes purely for the sake of the betterment of society. I say Yes! To unions, and invite everyone else to do the same.

I would suggest many people read this thread as well ( if they have not already )

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=95267

For those that have not yet voted please vote no. For those who have voted yes, please re-read the proposal and concider the effects carefully of this proposal.