NationStates Jolt Archive

Why don't we all quit whining (despite going from "reasonable" to "weak", can't whine myself, as I voted for it) and put our minds to injecting some rivitalisation into our damaged economies - such as by endorsing the "single currency"-resolution and get it up for voting?

cheers

Might as well elect a national leader, too, while you're at it...

Meaning?

Why don't we all quit whining (despite going from "reasonable" to "weak", can't whine myself, as I voted for it) and put our minds to injecting some rivitalisation into our damaged economies - such as by endorsing the "single currency"-resolution and get it up for voting?

cheers

You make me sick.

What?!

Look, I am pointing out that if we want to improve our economies, there are proposals currently seeking endorsement that allows us to do just that. Of course, if you'd rather sit around feeling sick, by all means. I doubt if you need my assistance to accomplish that.

cheers

To All those who fear the empact of the UN's latest Labor Union Resolution I would l ike to direct your attention to the reaction of the our Government this morning at

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96996

Why don't we all quit whining (despite going from "reasonable" to "weak", can't whine myself, as I voted for it) and put our minds to injecting some rivitalisation into our damaged economies - such as by endorsing the "single currency"-resolution and get it up for voting?

cheers

You make me sick.

What an odd comment to make... Sorry, I'm sure at 11pm that made sense.

Did that resolution seriously make our economies go down? Mine went down by two (Frightening to Powerhouse) after it was passed. If so I'll make sure my military gets some fighting time in.

Nevermoore's frightening economy will remain invincible despite UN meddling or the past and future, but hear me now! Any attempt to change our national currency to a "One World Currency" will result in war! This I promise unto you all.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

Did that resolution seriously make our economies go down? Mine went down by two (Frightening to Powerhouse) after it was passed. If so I'll make sure my military gets some fighting time in.

Mine went from strong to reasonable. I have a labor amendment addressing our problems on the table.

This is an outrage! Something I WILL NOT stand! Join me with war upon the Free Soviets! I will make an attack and anyone against them is free to join me! Together let us defeat the evils of socialism!

You will do no such thing.

We take a dim view of such bloodthirst towards our allies.

~Proxy Ejai Telenu

Synod for Defence, Socialist Commonwealth of Anhierarch

Mine is still frightening...

Mine is still frightening...

As is mine....

You will do no such thing.

We take a dim view of such bloodthirst towards our allies.

~Proxy Ejai Telenu

Synod for Defence, Socialist Commonwealth of AnhierarchI have two words for you... Too late.

War, the first resort of the scoundrel.

Very well. March to your doom, if you wish.

~Proxy Ejai Telenu

In the words of the immortal Dylan:

Patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king

Dendrys has resigned in protest and ejected the UN compliance ministry, and we are slowly rebuilding the faith of our people, who were shocked and appalled by the damage that arose so quickly in labour relations and even interpersonal exchanges.

The point is not whether your economies have been measurably damaged. The point is that you are no longer free to protect your people as changes arise. If you think that a unified currency mends the fear, pain, suffering, disenfranchisement, discrimination, and dissociation that your people may now begin to suffer because unions are no longer subject to further legislation, then you make me sick, too.


Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

To us, the point IS exactly the economic cost of the resolution. Being a practical nation, we thus turn naturally towards addressing this problem. This somehow seems to me preferable to engaging in wild paranoia unrelated to any reality just because unions have been guaranteed the right to exist and function, as if this was some sort of revolutionary step.

those of you who don't like the UN's forced decisions should leave, this is why i didn't apply in the first place. i don't want the votes of other countries telling me what to do 8)

"Derminia is currently arguing that under the current resolution, the existing laws of nations are guaranteed by the resolution."

Legal Council
Commonwealth of Derminia

Support this resolution if you hate the previous one.

We declare that all governed have vested in their democratic governments certain mandates, among which the most fundamental mandates include the upkeep of law and order and the right of the governed to be protected from fraud and foreign or domestic enemies. We hold that as powerful institutions, labor unions are vulnerable to inflitration and control by certain movements that would act contrary to the rights of its members, the rights of the industry which employs them, and against the government which both industry and worker are a part of. Such movements include, but are not limited to: Syndicalists, a radical political movement that advocates bringing industry and government under the control of federations of labor unions by the use of violent direct action, such as political, national strikes and sabotage, the mafia, and certain international factions which would act contrary to the national interests of countries whose labor unions are international members.

Purpose:

The purpose of this resolution is to reaffirm the basic rights of the governed by aligning labor unions with their
intended mission of labor representation.

1.) This resolution would prohibit labor unions from engaging in subversive direct actions such as sabotage, workplace occupation, lock outs, and obstruction of non-union workers to be employed by the company.

A.) Unions may not operate closed shops, or coerce non union members to join their unions.

B.)Unions may not coerce employers to solely employ union members.

2.) Labor monopolies are inherently counterproductive and undemocratic institutions.

A.) Labor unions may not engage in monopolistic practices such as wage inflation, use of the organization to force employers to pass outrageous, economically unfeasible benefits, or organize labor cartels to artificially inflate cost of employment.

3.) 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.

A.) The place for unions is within the work place only.

B.) It is the job of the union without the use of force, to form a contract that is benefitial to both employer and employee.

C.)Both parties must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve contract disputes.

4.) Labor Unions may not belong to international federations, confederations, or cartels which are under direct control of unitary leadership; such power 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, but of foreign enemies whose agenda could use labor as a weapon.


A.) Labor Unions cannot engage in excessive restriction of trade such as: indefinite national strikes during national emergencies, or strikes that would cause undue oppression to the freedom of others to engage in peaceful trade, and strikes which would cripple the economy and endanger the welfare of the nation as a whole. This provision does not outlaw strikes outright.

5.) Labor Unions must remain non partisan organizations.

A.)Labor union leaders may not run for public office and at the same time hold leadership or any position in a labor union.

B.) Labor unions may not use member dues for political reasons.




Approvals: 8 (Hizark, Nouvelle Zealandia, The Bruce, Anustonia, Endolantron, Roomland, Sulon, Taverham high)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 118 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Nov 28 2003

Having voted for the Union resolution, I could nevertheless endorse this as a welcome clarification, if some changes were made to it:

1. Lockouts is in fact by definition something only the employer can do - it is their equivalent to a strike.

3. A: Too restrictive. It contravenes both the right to free speech and the right to assembly to restrict the activities of unions thusly. If a union wants to be blatantly party political, why shouldn't it be able to? They always have been in most places, and still are.

B: I disagree. It is the place of Unions to try to assure maximally good conditions for its members, within an overall sense of responsibility for society as a whole. Just as it is the place of Employers associations to try and ensure maximally good conditions for its member businesses.

4. Would not support this at all. What you are attempting to outlaw is what has been the historical fact for 150 years.

5. A Labor Union is by definition the opposite of a non-partisan organisation.

5B: See no reason why they should not be able to, but they will be subject to the same rules as other donors - such as employers - are.

Oh well, turns out there were rather a lot of objections really.

cheers

Wasn't this bill supposed to improve our countries. Why should we think this new one will

Having voted for the Union resolution, I could nevertheless endorse this as a welcome clarification, if some changes were made to it:

1. Lockouts is in fact by definition something only the employer can do - it is their equivalent to a strike.

Whoops, my bad.


3. A: Too restrictive. It contravenes both the right to free speech and the right to assembly to restrict the activities of unions thusly. If a union wants to be blatantly party political, why shouldn't it be able to? They always have been in most places, and still are.

I firmly believe that what a labor union does should be only betwen the employer and the employee. If labor unions become political then they can be used as weapons by the leadership. It would in effect become a pseudo -political party and a syndicalist movement, one which this resolution is trying to prevent. It means that unions should mind the business of collective bargaining. Labor unions are made to counter balance oppressive work environments not run for office.

B: I disagree. It is the place of Unions to try to assure maximally good conditions for its members, within an overall sense of responsibility for society as a whole. Just as it is the place of Employers associations to try and ensure maximally good conditions for its member businesses.

So you believe that the employees and the employer should both struggle with each other instead work in a benefitial fashion negotiated by both parties?

Maybe you should expand on this?

4. Would not support this at all. What you are attempting to outlaw is what has been the historical fact for 150 years.

I dont think any national leader would want the health of their economy dictated by a few men on the other side of the border. What assurances can you give me that communist agents dont infilitrate an international organization and dictate the agenda to the labor unions? When the Soviet Union was in existance the Communist Party USA and the labor unions took marching orders from the Kremlin to undermine America, this has been documented.

In any case, it does not mean you cannot join an international solidarity movement, it just means you cant take orders from someone living outside the country the labor union is resident.


5. A Labor Union is by definition the opposite of a non-partisan organisation.[/'quote]

Yes, but it should work for the benefit of its members only in the context of the employer employee relationship.


[quote]5B: See no reason why they should not be able to, but they will be subject to the same rules as other donors - such as employers - are.

If a labor Union leader runs for political office or is in political office he should resign from the leadership role because there is a conflict of interest. For example, the Histadrut in Israel is run by Amir Peretz who is also an MP. He uses national strikes for political reasons and as a weapon, which should not be ever allowed.

Wasn't this bill supposed to improve our countries. Why should we think this new one will

Because the last bill was sponsored by communists who want everyone to be poor.

I want to promote trade and strengthen the economy. This is the purpose of this bill. My economy was hit hard. I had a Strong economy and now it is reasonable, all because of the capitalist hating commies. My people lost over 4000 shekels in spending power and had their taxes doubled. The commies ruined the lives of my people for nothing other dispicable, blind idealogy. For me it is an outrage. If you want your economy to recover vote for this proposal.

"I firmly believe that what a labor union does should be only betwen the employer and the employee. If labor unions become political then they can be used as weapons by the leadership. It would in effect become a pseudo -political party and a syndicalist movement, one which this resolution is trying to prevent. It means that unions should mind the business of collective bargaining. Labor unions are made to counter balance oppressive work environments not run for office. "

There are many stages of politics between being strictly confined to workplace activity and running for office. In fact, most important union/employers interaction take place outside the individual workplace, at the national level. There is no way you can separate strictly between politics and labor issues - the latter are to a large extent inherently political, and unions and their members have a legitimate interest at stake in them. Pension rights, unemployment benefits, labor legislation and so on. Besides, it is the perfect right of ANY association of ANY kind to support or pursue whatever political cause they damn well please.

"So you believe that the employees and the employer should both struggle with each other instead work in a benefitial fashion negotiated by both parties?

Maybe you should expand on this?"

Yes, that is the principle that has governed labor relations everywhere historically, except in fascist corporate and communist states. It is simply a corollary of the right of everyone to pursue their own interest - the same principle informs the structure of legal processes in democratic societies, party politics and free enterprise. To the extent that the two see their interests as convergent and interlinked, they will cooperate rather than confront each other. To force them to do so in any case simply removes the whole point.

"I dont think any national leader would want the health of their economy dictated by a few men on the other side of the border. What assurances can you give me that communist agents dont infilitrate an international organization and dictate the agenda to the labor unions? When the Soviet Union was in existance the Communist Party USA and the labor unions took marching orders from the Kremlin to undermine America, this has been documented.

In any case, it does not mean you cannot join an international solidarity movement, it just means you cant take orders from someone living outside the country the labor union is resident. "

There are no such assurances, of course. There is a legitimate international aspect to the labour movement. Historically, parts of it has indeed been at times strongly tied communism, and, like communist parties, dominated by Moscow. But that's democracy for you. Give people good reasons to turn away from communism, and they will.

"Yes, but it should work for the benefit of its members only in the context of the employer employee relationship. "

Why? That would in effect constitute a drastic curtailment of union activity compared to what has been the normality for many, many decades.

"If a labor Union leader runs for political office or is in political office he should resign from the leadership role because there is a conflict of interest."

I did not disagree with this.

"For example, the Histadrut in Israel is run by Amir Peretz who is also an MP. He uses national strikes for political reasons and as a weapon, which should not be ever allowed."

The trick is to institute a system of collective bargaining that clearly defines when and on what grounds a strike can legitimately take place. Strikes as an instrument of political protest should clearly not enjoy public sanction in the same way.

cheers

To us, the point IS exactly the economic cost of the resolution. Being a practical nation, we thus turn naturally towards addressing this problem. This somehow seems to me preferable to engaging in wild paranoia unrelated to any reality just because unions have been guaranteed the right to exist and function, as if this was some sort of revolutionary step.

I believe you have missed my point. My point is that for nations who only value economic cost, you will have to respond accordingly. We, who measure things in the cost of human welfare, a sense of fulfillment, and a commitment to community, found the resolution damaging in ways we will now have to respond to accordingly as well.

Just do us all a favour and don't claim that you're interested in human rights if you see a skyrocketing sense of cynicism and fear as unimportant to your nation's life.



Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees[/color]

I'm in favor of Angry's Judea's proposal if I were a delegate I'd vote to approve it

"I believe you have missed my point. My point is that for nations who only value economic cost, you will have to respond accordingly. We, who measure things in the cost of human welfare, a sense of fulfillment, and a commitment to community, found the resolution damaging in ways we will now have to respond to accordingly as well.

Just do us all a favour and don't claim that you're interested in human rights if you see a skyrocketing sense of cynicism and fear as unimportant to your nation's life."

I do not only value economic cost. But we are frankly not experiencing any sense of cynicism or fear as a result of the labor resolution - rather the contrary in fact. The only downside is it's proving to be a bit burdensome to our businesses. Thus our concern is with this aspect.