NationStates Jolt Archive


New resolution...new anti-striking policy!

Henleaze Avenue
23-11-2003, 22:16
The government of Henleaze Avenue is considering bringing a new policy into force to counteract the effects of the current resolution. Any strikers who repeatedly refuse reasonable offers made by the government or company will be sacked, and new workers hired in their place. Note: this will apply to ALL strikers, not just union members. Therefore this is not 'anti-union discrimination' - it is 'anti-unreasonable striker discrimination'. To my knowledge there is no resolution forbidding this...(yet)... The reasonableness of the offer will be judged by an independently appointed neutral committee.

The act of extended striking will also be incorporated into a new law which renders all forms of public disorder (including extended striking)an offence. As stated in Clause 6 of the resolution, union members must obey this new law. Since not enforcing said law would result in anarchy on the streets, Clause 6 would overrule Clause 7 (unless we accept that the resolution is inherently contradictory and therefore meaningless), and the law will be enforced.

The resolution states "All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions." Workers will be allowed to engage in industrial action, and they will be allowed to start it. They will not, however, be allowed to CONTINUE said action longer than a period of one week. We believe that in this time a reasonable offer will be made, and if they have not accepted an offer judged as reasonable after 7 days, the strike will be judged to be a breach of public order, allowing the strikers to be arrested and subsequently sacked.

Comments?
Gearheads
24-11-2003, 00:21
It's an interesting idea, except that a smart corporation would say nothing to a striking employee for a week (or would offer the current conditions) and be able to fire the workers. Also, it's unfair to have the government and corporations deem what is considered reasonable. Perhaps an objective union leader could be included as well, and each case could be determined by a panel.
24-11-2003, 02:01
Actually it's still discrimination against unions. That's like saying someone who hates Blacks doesn't hate Black women.
24-11-2003, 02:09
I suggest you all look at my new law.

Nothing in that resolution says I have to PAY those employees who choose to strike.