NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings Esteemed Colleagues.
As the delegate for my region, I am honored to announce that the following proposal has been submitted by a nation in my region. Please take a look and support it if you feel that you can.
NewfoundCana

International Labor Rights Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant Proposed by: Coastland
Description: Passage of the International Labor Rights Act will:
1) Guarantee the right to collective bargaining within any given industry, public or private.
2) Outlaw the use of state coercion (police tactics, militia, or otherwise) to prevent such organization.
3) Punish such coercion if it should occur, by method of trade restrictions and sanctions against the offending government or company.
4) Create an international governing board to address violations of the act and define specific punishments. The board would also negotiate for international disputes on standards.
5) Allow the board to handle petitions. Petitions can be submitted to opt-out of the provisions of the act only in clear cases where:
-Union organization could be proven to be a direct and immediate threat to the economic stability of a county.
-It could be shown that organization was being carried out merely for political ends rather than economic needs.
-Other petitions would be handled case-by-case, but in the absence of either of the two above conditions, opt-outs would not likely be granted.
6) UN countries are encourage to consider, though by no means be mandated into, preferential trade treatment towards non-UN countries whose standards are similar to those of the ILRA.

Voting Ends: Mon Jun 14 2004

Just a little bump. :D

Sounds okay…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Labour laws, like so many other laws, are passed to address local or national concerns. These vary widely from place to place, and are not "standards" in the sense that the right to life and the right to freedom are. Many nations have differing views as to worker's rights, and even in the post industrialized western world, no two nations have identical labour laws. Thus, labour laws should be left to national goverments, who are best placed to react to national conditions and national views. Labour "standards" should not be imposed on a cookie cutter approach by the UN.

We cannot suppoert this resolution and will vote against it.

Labour laws, like so many other laws, are passed to address local or national concerns. These vary widely from place to place, and are not "standards" in the sense that the right to life and the right to freedom are. Many nations have differing views as to worker's rights

Of course, many nations have differing views as to human rights, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to set certain minimum standards for human rights. What we have here is the is/ought fallacy. Just because it is the case that lots of nations would rather not respect the rights of workers does not mean that they ought to be allowed to do so.
AFoFS UN Council

@Soviet communist

"Just because it is the case that lots of nations would rather not respect the rights of workers does not mean that they ought to be allowed to do so." - and what would you say if there would be a resolution garanteeing the right of free business, enterprises and entrepeneurs????

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia and (again, after a short revolt yesterday) regional delegate of Futura

@Soviet communist

"Just because it is the case that lots of nations would rather not respect the rights of workers does not mean that they ought to be allowed to do so." - and what would you say if there would be a resolution garanteeing the right of free business, enterprises and entrepeneurs????

Our definition of what counts as a right will differ from yours, as will our's differ from that employed by one of the countless tin-pot dictators around. This is because rights have no objective existence; they exist mainly to fit some conception of an ideal society.

For example, what you call the right of free enterprise, we would calling theft and slavery. There can be no right to privately own the means of social production, because collective projects and the basic needs of life can only be owned collectively. To claim"this area of land is mine" or "this factory is mine" is to steal from everyone else who uses that land or works in that factory or is otherwise affected by your claim. It is to take what is not properly your's. And likewise there can be no right for that thief to use his stolen goods to make others sell their freedom in order that they might have a small share of the benefits of what was rightfully their's in the first place.

Of course, we do actually have a set of rights relating to enterprises that we defend. The right of all people involved in a collective enterprise to be a part of the decision-making process for that enterprise, for one. And the right of all collectives to manage their own affairs, for another.

Anyway, since we will disagree on what exactly constitutes a right and the UN has the power to declare things to be rights, it appears we have a struggle on our hands. Bit by bit, the members of the UN are collectively deciding upon a body of rights that they will hold to be universal. You will never be able to get the UN to recognize the exact set of rights that you hold, but then neither will we.
AFoFS UN Council

It seems this proposal will improve worldwide standards for the better treatment of workers. VOTE YES.

Isn't this better a local issue?

Labor rights are international as well.
Look at international labor standards in regard to child labor.