NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #38 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=40328780/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=37)
Proposed by: The Kingsland

Description: UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=40328780/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=37) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNISES that many member nations prefer the presence of Labor Unions in their economy.

NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", is too strong for most nations based upon the following reasons:

1) Enables unions to be free from national laws and the enforcement of them. This can allow the rise of de facto governmental organizations.

2) Does not allow exemptions from union interference for essential services such as local police force, armed services, and other government agencies. The regulation of these services, which are necessary for the protection of the national populace and national security, have proven to be detrimental in whole.

3) Does not allow for regulating unions to insure workers are represented in an appropriate manner. This has lead to wildcat strikes, secondary picketing, misuse of union funds and vote rigging.

4) Allows elements such as terrorists and organised crime groups to infiltrate and use the power of unions to undermine the authority and power of the Government

THEREFORE it is recommended that the each member nation decide on their own legislation concerning the implementation of unions.

REPEALS Resolution #38 "The Right of Labor Unions"


I'm hoping to bring this proposal to the attention of as many as possible. It was drafted on Conservatopia's offsite forum by representatives of regions Change, Galts Gulch and Conservatopia. The final proposal is authored by The Kingsland of Change.

We were started off by Camouflaged Bush of Change, who offered a point-by-point analysis of the original resolution - reproduced below - which was developed into the proposal by members of all 3 regions.

1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
• Infinges on national sovereignty

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.
• Forces governments to aid unions in striking.
• Encourages unions to strike for 60+ days.
• Government has no place getting involved in a private dispute between employers and its employees. Why not let the workers and company work it out?
• No definition of "appropriate steps".
• How can you ensure a moderator is unbiased?

3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labour unions, both nationally and internationally.
• Allows global strikes for no other reason than to destroy capitalism worldwide.
• International unions are a bad idea, what may be fair salary in one country may be unfair in another.
• Gives unions even more power because then they can establish head quarters in another country and use that countries laws to defend their actions if a government tries to move against them.
• Allows civilians to rebel against their "capitalist government" or support other communist governments (essentially treason).

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.
• Having no interference by public authorities means that police could not have any power over the unions.
• Prevents governments from insisting on democratic elections for unions.
• Prevents union members from calling for judicial review of union decisions. This allows union leaders to run their organisations in an undemocratic manner without any recourse for disenfranchised members.
• When some "labour union" is established your country cannot control or affect these unions. So if someone (or some organisation) wants to undertake “activities” using these unions (strikes etc), the government or police, and even military power, can’t stop it because U.N. resolution asks for "free from interference"
• If the leadership of a union acts in concert with a foreign power against a democratically elected government, that government has no powers to oppose the “activity”
• Calls for unions to be given preferential rights to all other organisations within the state.
• No regulation to prevent fraudulent use of union finances, or the pilfering of union-managed pensions.
• No regulation to prevent union leaders from vote rigging.
• No regulation to prevent secondary picketing.
• No regulation of “wild cat” strikes
• The Union could conduct mafia-style hits which are part of "organizing activities" and they would be free from state interference. Powerful unions have long been the targets of organized crime syndicates.
• The Unions could have terrorist elements from both at home and abroad in charge and be free from state interference

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.
• Protects union-members against employers, but it does not protect non-union members against unions. This will lead to 'closed shop' situations, where a union demands that employees become members in order to remain employed.

6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivises, shall respect the laws of their nations.
• In opposition to clause 7
• to say that the unions must "respect" a nations laws is decidedly NOT the same as "obeying" a country's laws

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.
• In opposition to clause 6
• If unions get out of control and need to be taken down, what can you do about it if this resolution passes?
• It takes away the right to govern your country as you see fit.
• Sometimes, for the good of the state and its economy, the government must have the power to step in and stop strikes or impossible demands made by unions.
• The way that the proposal is worded, it puts unions on the same level as nations. The unions have to respect (obey) the laws of the nation, but it also reads such that the nation has to respect (obey) the laws of the Union.


Several taking part in the discussion were anti-union, some wanted a repeal for national sovereignity reasons and some (myself included) feel that the original resolution does not adequately regulate Unions. We hope that our proposal accomodates all of these views. We hope to achieve "a safe, healthy workforce where the employee and corporate goals are both achieved." (Quote: KwsNI, Conservatopia)

The original resolution was passed with a majority of 1,930 so we are hopeful of securing a repeal.

If the argument convinces you, please endorse the proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=40328780/page=UN_proposal/start=15) or on the proposals page search for 'The rights of labor unions'.

Please use this thread to debate our proposal and offer constructive criticism, as we intend to re-submit if it does not reach quorum.

The only reason I can really see for wanting unions to be outlawed (which is what this repeal would permit, regardless of your new proposal) is to let the government, and the big corporations, abuse and "enslave" their workers. Every single point of your analysis indicates you have no concern for the rights of the common worker, and some of them are flat out misleading and untruthful.

And - on a side note - congratulations for managing to fit "terrorism" in to a repeal about workers' rights. It's not just anyone who can manage that :}

That repeal gets the Texan Hotrodders seal of approval. :)

The only reason I can really see for wanting unions to be outlawed (which is what this repeal would permit, regardless of your new proposal) is to let the government, and the big corporations, abuse and "enslave" their workers.

Not every nation has governments and/or corporations. Mine has neither, so it would be hard for either of those entities to abuse anyone.

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

Freedom For Most,
I have just recently joined the UN. On coming to this forum I spotted your request to repeal a resolution. I can see some problematic areas in that particular resolution but nothing that would cause it to need to be repealed. The proletariat should have certain rights and be treated in a humane manner. They should not be slaves to the Corporations, but this resolution could harm the economies of some of the other nations.

Not every nation has governments and/or corporations. Mine has neither, so it would be hard for either of those entities to abuse anyone.

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

As has been shown recently, the rights of workers is something that concerns the UN on an international level (the repeal of the 40 hour work week was rejected). So with this being yet another attempt to errode the rights of workers, I would say that the UN would be right in rejecting it too.

As has been shown recently, the rights of workers is something that concerns the UN on an international level (the repeal of the 40 hour work week was rejected).

So? The UN might be concerned with how much hair I have on my legs, but that doesn't make that concern appropriate.

So with this being yet another attempt to errode the rights of workers, I would say that the UN would be right in rejecting it too.

An attempt to erode the rights of workers? I suppose it's capitalist consiracy time again.

The only reason I can really see for wanting unions to be outlawed (which is what this repeal would permit, regardless of your new proposal) is to let the government, and the big corporations, abuse and "enslave" their workers. Every single point of your analysis indicates you have no concern for the rights of the common worker, and some of them are flat out misleading and untruthful.

And - on a side note - congratulations for managing to fit "terrorism" in to a repeal about workers' rights. It's not just anyone who can manage that :}

The repeal would not outlaw unions, it clearly states that:

each member nation decide on their own legislation concerning the implementation of unions.

Just beacause there is not UN legislation forcing countries to have unions does not mean they would not exist. For example there is not a UN resolution that allows people to buy apples does this mean buying apples is outlawed?

I'd be interested in seeing which points of the analysis you find misleading and untruthful, they all seem reasonable to me.

The original resolution went too far in granting unions rights, it effectively allows them to be above the law, that is in no way a healthy situation for any country whether they are capitalist or socialist. I will vote for repeal.

I must whole heartedly agree with this appeal. While I recognize the value of Union Labor, this resolution, like the 40 hour work week, seems to merely be UN busybodies destroying sovereignty and suppressing growing economies. On a base level a nations sovereignty must be protected, or else you lose all concept of state hood.

Edited for spelling

I must whole heartedly agree with this appeal. While I recognize the value of Union Labor, this resolution, like the 40 hour work week, seems to merely be UN busybodies destroying sovereignty and suppressing growing economies. On a base level a nations sovereignty must be protected, or else you lose all concept of state hood.

Edited for spelling
I don't trust the ulterior motives of the group that generated this proposal. Anything coming out of Conservatopia is suspect in my eyes. What's next, tort reform? Dismantling social programs?

Only by an extremist interpretation does this resolution have problems serious enough to warrant repeal.

Our motives are those stated on my first post. Your comments worry me, Asshelmetta, because you know nothing of our region - we are not active in the forums or on the world stage. You rubbish your own argument by claiming that "tort reform" and "dismantling social programs" are next on our agenda (through repealing resolutions?).

There is no "group" and no agenda per se, the people who drafted this proposal are nations from different regions who came together to discuss a UN resolution we all disagreed upon.

The resolution may not have any "serious problem" but in my opinion, it has several problems, which I've outlined in my first post. The fact that it passed by only 2000 votes is reason enough to think about a repeal resolution.

Agreed, I'm an inoffensive centrist democracy and not even affiliated with this group, so watch out who you call a conservative with ulterior motives.

Description:
1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.

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.

3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.

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.

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.

6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.

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.



Argument: RECOGNISES that many member nations prefer the presence of Labor Unions in their economy.


This I will accept :}


NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", is too strong for most nations based upon the following reasons:


And yet it passed.


1) Enables unions to be free from national laws and the enforcement of them. This can allow the rise of de facto governmental organizations.


How? I would consider this to be at best a misunderstanding, at worst a flat out lie. The resolution does say that the government can not pass laws to impair the way the Union operates, but it also says that everyone who works within a union has to respect all the other laws of the land.


2) Does not allow exemptions from union interference for essential services such as local police force, armed services, and other government agencies. The regulation of these services, which are necessary for the protection of the national populace and national security, have proven to be detrimental in whole.


And because they are police they should not be permitted to go on strike? Someone choses to serve their country and they become an indentured servent? The police should be able to strike, the fire department should be able to strike. I can see a case for the army not being permitted to strike, but I have never known unions to form in the military anyway. And as for the rest - even if they are government workers they should be permitted to the same rights as anyone else.


3) Does not allow for regulating unions to insure workers are represented in an appropriate manner. This has lead to wildcat strikes, secondary picketing, misuse of union funds and vote rigging.


Or - to put it another way - it does not allow governments to interfere in the running of a union (for example to prevent them striking, prevent them being able to function properly) and ensures that the workers have the right to strike and bargin the way they want to.


4) Allows elements such as terrorists and organised crime groups to infiltrate and use the power of unions to undermine the authority and power of the Government


This is a serious arguement? Cause a few decades ago people were saying that unions would allow liberals and blacks and jews and communists to infiltrate the country and undermine the government. Trying to inspire fear by using the magic word "terrorism" is a good indication of how bad a foundation a repeal is based on.


THEREFORE it is recommended that the each member nation decide on their own legislation concerning the implementation of unions.


Thus allowing nations to make them illegal, and setting back the workers' rights movement a good two centuries or so.



1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
• Infinges on national sovereignty


All resolutions do that. It is not a good enough reason to justify repealing it.


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.
• Forces governments to aid unions in striking.


It says that if the dispute continues, government should help with the solution, rather than just letting it run and run.


• Encourages unions to strike for 60+ days.


Why? The dispute would be better solved quicker to avoid government interference


• Government has no place getting involved in a private dispute between employers and its employees. Why not let the workers and company work it out?


Because it might be in the interest of the government to help? They are only providing a moderator, not actually getting involved in the negotiations.


• No definition of "appropriate steps".


So first you think it interferes in national sovereignty too much, and now you are saying it doesn't?


• How can you ensure a moderator is unbiased?


You ask both sides if they will agree to the moderator. If not, you find someone else. It's not that hard!


3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labour unions, both nationally and internationally.
• Allows global strikes for no other reason than to destroy capitalism worldwide.
• International unions are a bad idea, what may be fair salary in one country may be unfair in another.
• Gives unions even more power because then they can establish head quarters in another country and use that countries laws to defend their actions if a government tries to move against them.
• Allows civilians to rebel against their "capitalist government" or support other communist governments (essentially treason).


I think this is just scare tactics. No where does it say that by joining an international union can you use the laws of another country in your own. The IRCO (for example) is an international body, but it obeys the laws of the land it is currently in. Also - if you read the text - it is an international confederation of unions, not one big union.
And the idea that a union that has a branch in more than one nation is going to lead to treason is simply scare tactics of the worst type. (And I note you are only worried about communist threats here, which is a good indication of where the idea of the repeal comes from).


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.
• Having no interference by public authorities means that police could not have any power over the unions.


See further down as to why this is an outright lie.


• Prevents governments from insisting on democratic elections for unions.


And it prevents governments from having a puppet elected that will run the union for the government rather than the workers.


• Prevents union members from calling for judicial review of union decisions. This allows union leaders to run their organisations in an undemocratic manner without any recourse for disenfranchised members.


And it prevents the governments from being able to manipulate the union to it's own ends.


• When some "labour union" is established your country cannot control or affect these unions. So if someone (or some organisation) wants to undertake “activities” using these unions (strikes etc), the government or police, and even military power, can’t stop it because U.N. resolution asks for "free from interference"


If they are breaking the law then they can be stopped (see later). If not, then the workers can be replaced. And it stops the government from employng fear and terror tactics against those who would excerise their right to a union.


• If the leadership of a union acts in concert with a foreign power against a democratically elected government, that government has no powers to oppose the “activity”


More scare tactics. If they are breaking the law then they can be stopped. Treason is against the law in most countries.


• Calls for unions to be given preferential rights to all other organisations within the state.


Where? It says governments can not interfere in the way unions are run. It makes no mention of any other organizations. This is either a huge exageration or an outright lie to scare people. Either way it is false and misleading.


• No regulation to prevent fraudulent use of union finances, or the pilfering of union-managed pensions.


And am pretty sure these are both crimes (which can be stopped)


• No regulation to prevent union leaders from vote rigging.


You don't think the members can take care of this on their own? That if they find their leadership to be corrupt they can't do anything about it?


• No regulation to prevent secondary picketing.
• No regulation of “wild cat” strikes


So?


• The Union could conduct mafia-style hits which are part of "organizing activities" and they would be free from state interference. Powerful unions have long been the targets of organized crime syndicates.
• The Unions could have terrorist elements from both at home and abroad in charge and be free from state interference


Fear. Scare. "TERRORISM". Weak arguements, that are simply not true, because - as is REPEATEDLY stated - the union is not above the law.


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.
• Protects union-members against employers, but it does not protect non-union members against unions. This will lead to 'closed shop' situations, where a union demands that employees become members in order to remain employed.


Or - to put it another way - it would prevent employers from saying that you can only have a job if you are not in a union.


6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivises, shall respect the laws of their nations.
• In opposition to clause 7
• to say that the unions must "respect" a nations laws is decidedly NOT the same as "obeying" a country's laws


This quite honestly the most disturbing part of the analysis. This does not put the union above the law. It says that you can not have a union going round torching buildings because they are unhappy with the government. It doesn't say you can't kill all the leaders under the grounds of union business. And it doesn't have to say "respecting" is the same as "obeying" because it doesn't say you don't have to obey them.


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.
• In opposition to clause 6


No it isn't. It says that you can not make laws to prevent the union from existing, or from having meetings, going on strike and the like. Given that it follows clause 6, it implies that you can have laws that prevent members of unions from murdering everyone, but you can't have laws to prevent unions from striking.


• If unions get out of control and need to be taken down, what can you do about it if this resolution passes?
• It takes away the right to govern your country as you see fit.


More scare and terror tactics. No where does it say that unions can break the law. NO WHERE.


• Sometimes, for the good of the state and its economy, the government must have the power to step in and stop strikes or impossible demands made by unions.


Sometimes for the good of the state you can claim you have to shoot all the black people. Yet somehow that is considered a bad thing. And - by the way - earlier the arguement was saying that the government should have no business interfering with the deals between businesses and their workers. Now you want the right to do it so much you are saying you need it?

If a union goes on strike, it goes on strike. The government should not be able to break it up because they think it is necessary. If they need the workers to work so badly they should find a compromise.


• The way that the proposal is worded, it puts unions on the same level as nations. The unions have to respect (obey) the laws of the nation, but it also reads such that the nation has to respect (obey) the laws of the Union.


Yeah - it really doesn't say that. That is another outright lie.


So - there you have it. The repeal is waving the "reds under the bed" flag to scare everyone in to removing one of the key parts of workers rights, but along with the communists, they have thrown in the magicaly scary word of "terrorist" in a (hopefully pointless) attempt to scare you in to going their way, despite the fact there is no logical basis in any of their arguements, and quite a lot of misleading statements and outright lies.

I don't trust the ulterior motives of the group that generated this proposal. Anything coming out of Conservatopia is suspect in my eyes. What's next, tort reform? Dismantling social programs?

That's a weak argument for not supporting this repeal. "It's a vast right-wing conspiracy!" Give me a break, man. You're just looking for an excuse not to vote for this (if it reaches quorum).

Only by an extremist interpretation does this resolution have problems serious enough to warrant repeal.

Only by extremist (left-wing extremism) interpretation does this resolution NOT have serious problems. Next time read the repeal and its points before posting, please.

That's a weak argument for not supporting this repeal. "It's a vast right-wing conspiracy!" Give me a break, man. You're just looking for an excuse not to vote for this (if it reaches quorum).


The repeal seems to be scared of a large left-wing conspiracy to use unions to take over capitalist nations and turn them in to communist ones.

Agreed, I'm an inoffensive centrist democracy and not even affiliated with this group, so watch out who you call a conservative with ulterior motives.
I tried to be clear in my post that I was talking to you about them, not accusing you of being one of them. I was asserting ulterior motives to them, not you.

That's a weak argument for not supporting this repeal. "It's a vast right-wing conspiracy!" Give me a break, man. You're just looking for an excuse not to vote for this (if it reaches quorum).

Oh, no. If it reaches quorum, I intend to actively campaign against it.
p.s. I didn't call it vast.



Only by extremist (left-wing extremism) interpretation does this resolution NOT have serious problems. Next time read the repeal and its points before posting, please.
Tilenca already fisked it. The post right before yours.
Because I didn't address the original resolution or the repeal point-by-point, you feel comfortable insulting me?

My initial opposition was based upon reading the repeal proposal and identifying several points of hyperbole and mis-statements.

I would go back and give a more detailed analysis, but I don't think this has a prayer of passing anyway. Not worth the effort.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but to be fair you did quote me in your post talking about the right wing conspiricy. Personally I am supporting the repeal for two reasons, (Though I am not sure if the OP agree's with either of them)
First off, what about our communistic friends? There is no corperation then, and it would be impractical to allow the government to be the mediator if it is one of the two parties! Secondly Union's are not really beneficial to fledgling countries. When you are just starting out, or in a time of war, a union can have negative consequences on ecomic growth that ultimatly hurt everyone in the nation. So while I would say that the majority cases a union is good, it should be up to the individual nation to determine if they are one of those cases.

First off, what about our communistic friends? There is no corperation then, and it would be impractical to allow the government to be the mediator if it is one of the two parties!


In the legal system, the judge is generally on the payroll of the government, yet most people assume judges can be fair and unbiased. If both sides agree to the moderator, why can the same assumption not be made?


Secondly Union's are not really beneficial to fledgling countries. When you are just starting out, or in a time of war, a union can have negative consequences on ecomic growth that ultimatly hurt everyone in the nation. So while I would say that the majority cases a union is good, it should be up to the individual nation to determine if they are one of those cases.

A nation is more likely to prosper if the workers are happy, and if they know they have the right to voice their grievences and so forth they will be more likely to be happy than if they are treated as useless grunts - nothing more than andriods.

A nation is more likely to prosper if the workers are happy, and if they know they have the right to voice their grievences and so forth they will be more likely to be happy than if they are treated as useless grunts - nothing more than andriods.

This brings me to an interesting question. Shall we take into account those nations who's workers are all androids?

This brings me to an interesting question. Shall we take into account those nations who's workers are all androids?

That depends on your perspective. If the androids are not treated as full members of society (like one would assume humans are) then no. If they are - if they are treated as I would treat humans, elves and dwarves in my nation, then yes - we should.

I do not favor capitalism myself and am for workers' rights. However if it passed only with 2,000 votes then it seems that this is a polarizing issue. Perhaps if it is possibly there could be another vote on the issue. I am not against labour unions though.

First of all, thank you TilEnca for your mammoth post. You've clearly put some time and effort into that.

I cannot speak for my 'co-conspirators' but my grievance with the original resolution is that it is too simple. FFM is not against Labour / Trade Unions. I know I'm crossing over into RL here but we can look at Unions throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries and say that they are often a force for good. But there needs to be co-operation between Union, Employer and Government. The original resolution tipped the balance too far in favour of Unions.

I support Labour / Trade Unions but with adequate regulation and limitation, which the original resolution does not provide, if we interpret Clause 7 of the original as preventing nations from providing this.

First of all, thank you TilEnca for your mammoth post. You've clearly put some time and effort into that.


It is a topic I feel strongly about :} (And - to that end - I am sorry if anything I have posted so far sounds more like a rant than a reasoned arguement. Also if I offended/insulted you in anyway)

Also - my sarcasm about terrorism might have been a little unjustified as well, but that is something that I feel even MORE strongly about :}


I cannot speak for my 'co-conspirators' but my grievance with the original resolution is that it is too simple. FFM is not against Labour / Trade Unions. I know I'm crossing over into RL here but we can look at Unions throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries and say that they are often a force for good. But there needs to be co-operation between Union, Employer and Government. The original resolution tipped the balance too far in favour of Unions.


I disagree with your premise, but the government has all the power it needs. I would prefer the union to have more power :}


I support Labour / Trade Unions but with adequate regulation and limitation, which the original resolution does not provide, if we interpret Clause 7 of the original as preventing nations from providing this.

I think you are intrepreting Clause 7 wrongly, but that could just be my opinion :}

Having done further research into the original proposal i have found that this resolution was actually based upon the real-life International Labour Organisation. Here's a snippet of it:

[QUOTE}Recognition of the right to organize: The right to organize is to be granted to workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever (Article 2). Only the armed forces and the police may be exempted by national laws or regulations (Article 9).[/QUOTE]

Interesting, isn't it, that the original ILO text specifically allowed the exemption of police and armed services? This exemption did not appear in the NS resolution why do you suppose that is Tilenca?

Clearly we cannot have people like the police or the army being allowed to strike, anarcy would prevail if there was no law and order. And the head of the particular labor union would be able to force the government to do what every they liked.

Also I can't believe you find nothing wrong with wildcat strikes or secondary picketing! Why should a company be penalised for doing nothing wrong to it's employees because some company down the road treats it's employees poorly?

Interesting, isn't it, that the original ILO text specifically allowed the exemption of police and armed services? This exemption did not appear in the NS resolution why do you suppose that is Tilenca?


Because the person who drafted it was not a fascist.

And they are not specifically exempted - the government just has the option of exempting them.


Clearly we cannot have people like the police or the army being allowed to strike, anarcy would prevail if there was no law and order. And the head of the particular labor union would be able to force the government to do what every they liked.


I disagree. I can understand why the Army might be exempt, but the police put their lives on the line every day for the good of the people, and they should be permitted to air their grievances.


Also I can't believe you find nothing wrong with wildcat strikes or secondary picketing! Why should a company be penalised for doing nothing wrong to it's employees because some company down the road treats it's employees poorly?

Because that is the power of collective bargining. Right now I am not part of a Union, because there is only ever one President of TilEnca. However my friend is a member of the Sword Makers Guild. He works for a company that makes swords, and he is treated pretty well. But if another company down the road is abusing someone who makes swords, why should my friend not be permitted to strike in sympathy? Why should he not be permitted to picket that place to demonstrate how angry people are with the company?

A company, a nation, will rise and fall with the workers. Whether they protect the people, make ships or process data, they are the people who make the country what it is. Without the protection of a union, they will be individuals, with no power and influence, and they can easily be dictated to, abused, mistreated or virtually enslaved by their bosses. But if all the workers stand together - if they have the power to bargin with one voice - then they will be treated with the respect they deserve.

This resolution protects those who make the country what it is. Without the workers - the little people - every company, every service, every agency would ground to a halt and the nation would be at a standstill. Given that the nation depends on them so much, they should be treated with the respect they deserve, and this resolution makes sure they are.

So that's pretty much why I support it :}

Having done further research into the original proposal i have found that this resolution was actually based upon the real-life International Labour Organisation. Here's a snippet of it:



Interesting, isn't it, that the original ILO text specifically allowed the exemption of police and armed services? This exemption did not appear in the NS resolution why do you suppose that is Tilenca?

Clearly we cannot have people like the police or the army being allowed to strike, anarcy would prevail if there was no law and order. And the head of the particular labor union would be able to force the government to do what every they liked.

Also I can't believe you find nothing wrong with wildcat strikes or secondary picketing! Why should a company be penalised for doing nothing wrong to it's employees because some company down the road treats it's employees poorly?
I saw nothing in the original resolution that prevented a nationstate from preventing safety workers, security workers, emergency workers, or the armed forces from striking.

OOC: The police have effectively gone on strike in NYC before, and the anarchy that prevailed was indistinguishable from the normal anarchy of NYC.

But there needs to be co-operation between Union, Employer and Government. The original resolution tipped the balance too far in favour of Unions.
I could be wrong here but it seems to me that requiring the Union, the Employer and the Government to cooperate negates the entire concept of a union to begin with.

The whole terrorism scare doesn't make much sense either. Of course, if your terrorists actually were part of a union you might have better chances of reaching a negotiated settlement.

Hmmm.... perhaps a resolution requiring terrorists to unionize? :p

It is a topic I feel strongly about :} (And - to that end - I am sorry if anything I have posted so far sounds more like a rant than a reasoned arguement. Also if I offended/insulted you in anyway)

Not at all, nothing wrong with a good debate (as opposed to an argument or slanging match).

Wang Chun generally agrees with TilEnca's lengthy analysis, but is troubled by two points.

Point 4 of the original resolution allows unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform any other act of autocracy that stops short of breaking the laws of the country in which they operate.

Point 5 of the original resolution creates a situation that has historically led to closed shops. The combination of these two points creates a situation where workers exchange the tyranny of employers for the tyranny of unions.

The problem is, where should the UN go from here? What seems to be called for is an amendment of the original resolution to address this issue, but amendments are not permitted here. It seems excessive to require the original resolution to be repealed just to fix a loophole in two of its points. And a repeal would not be sufficient; a new resolution fixing the errors would be needed, and the text for that new resolution has yet to be delivered.

Wang Chun presumes that the present debate ought to be focused on whether it is a wise use of the UN's time to repeal this resolution and to pass a resolution replacing it, as opposed to focusing on other important matters.

Wang Chun generally agrees with TilEnca's lengthy analysis, but is troubled by two points.

Point 4 of the original resolution allows unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform any other act of autocracy that stops short of breaking the laws of the country in which they operate.


But if the union members are unhappy with the system, they can always quit and form a new union. The leaders of a nation are not answerable to the people cause the leaders have the army and the money. The leaders of a union however, are answerable. And if they behave in a way that the members find unacceptable, they can do something about it.


Point 5 of the original resolution creates a situation that has historically led to closed shops. The combination of these two points creates a situation where workers exchange the tyranny of employers for the tyranny of unions.


I know. But the alternative is to allow the government to have complete control over every aspect of the union, and be able to regulate it in to the ground.


The problem is, where should the UN go from here? What seems to be called for is an amendment of the original resolution to address this issue, but amendments are not permitted here. It seems excessive to require the original resolution to be repealed just to fix a loophole in two of its points. And a repeal would not be sufficient; a new resolution fixing the errors would be needed, and the text for that new resolution has yet to be delivered.

Wang Chun presumes that the present debate ought to be focused on whether it is a wise use of the UN's time to repeal this resolution and to pass a resolution replacing it, as opposed to focusing on other important matters.

I would be quite happy to see the repeal buried in the depths of forever, but alas I am not the all powerful leader of the UN. (That would be nice!)

I agree with the current resolution regarding Unions, and as such cannot support this baseless repeal.