NationStates Jolt Archive

It is time that we realise that evil powers are trying to infiltrate trades Unions worldwide in order to gain control of our economies and to destroy our nations. It is time that we act against this menace and destroy it once and for all!

Both the Kingdom of Summersonia and the Holy Empire of Juhdland have made a proposal to combat these foreign influences. I now invite the Emporer to show the world the proposal. Feel free to comment and add suggestions.

Here's a suggestion, post the proposal here so we can see it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

why do i get the feeling this one is going to be picked to pieces, and maybe make the 'silly proposals' thread? i mean, who, seriously, would infultrate a union, and not get caught out?

paranoia can drive people to strange actions. its a fact of life.

unions are locally based in a nation so i don't see the need for further UN legislation unless we're going to have international unions.

theres already resolutions about unions in the statute book and we don't need anymore.

I'm sorry you don't like what the 'evil powers' are doing but we're responsible for a lot of evil powers. They're our main export.

In all seriousness, I don't know what you are talking about. Please clarify.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Just as an educated guess, I think he may be referring to Trotskyite nations using socialist trades unions to forment discontent in capitalist nations.

Just as an educated guess, I think he may be referring to Trotskyite nations using socialist trades unions to forment discontent in capitalist nations.

I think about mid February. March of this year, someone wrote a whole (and pretty well argued, if wrong) repeal of labour unions based on that point alone (plus the idea that labour unions were above the law, which I think was a misunderstanding about the original text of the resolution).

i mean, who, seriously, would infultrate a union, and not get caught out?
I think a more likely questions is "who would infiltrate a union and get out?"

I think a more likely questions is "who would infiltrate a union and get out?"

*nods* Precisely.

We see no good reason why, if a nation does not feel threatened by infiltration of its own unions, it needs to be forced to deal with it.

As I am working with Summersonia on this, I have the draft proposal and will be posting it asap.

all i can say is good luck because i dont think it will get far....

This should be entertaining at the very least! I, UN Delegate, have the power to hold the fate of your proposal in my click! C'mon! Let's hear it! *sits amusedly on her throne that appeared out of nowhere simply for the purpose of drama*











*giggle!*

The reduction of corruption and extremist influences in trade unions proposal

• Reduce all foreign donations and funds to trade unions –

International influences could lead to some nations becoming puppet states. If urgent funds are needed, a state approved grant may be applied for to the Government.

• Government monitors –

In order to reduce already established corruption and the further potential increase, Government monitors are to be permitted to attend meetings without prior warning and to prosecute any member of a trade union for misappropriation of funds and to advise the union if their activities are conforming to the law.

• Prosecution for inappropriate and extremist behaviour –

Nations may deter or punish individuals or groups according to their national customs.

• Any member of leadership or management in a trade union should be police checked –

If positions such as teachers are in need of police checks, so should Trade Union leaders and managers. If any number of these went on strike, the nation in question could come under extreme danger. Because of the growing threat from terrorist groups and other extremist establishments, security is an issue we need to focus our efforts and resources on.

I'm sorry but to me this just looks like you dressed up an anti-union proposal using the words 'foreign influences' and terrorism.

No support.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

theres a lot of nations i know would love this proposal simply because they are dictatorships or one party states.

while i believe in a nations right to govern themselves and that unions are a national matter an act like this would give the green light to every two bit power hungry government to take away a workers right of representation in the workplace.

you may want to take this back to the drawing board.

while i believe in a nations right to govern themselves and that unions are a national matter an act like this would give the green light to every two bit power hungry government to take away a workers right of representation in the workplace.
My government has a green light? Sweet!

Vroom, Vroom!

My government has a green light? Sweet!

Vroom, Vroom!

LOL!

The reduction of corruption and extremist influences in trade unions proposal

• Reduce all foreign donations and funds to trade unions –

International influences could lead to some nations becoming puppet states. If urgent funds are needed, a state approved grant may be applied for to the Government.


Yet The Rights Of Labour Unions says


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


This would imply that you are not permitted to monitor or interfere with the funding of unions.



• Government monitors –

In order to reduce already established corruption and the further potential increase, Government monitors are to be permitted to attend meetings without prior warning and to prosecute any member of a trade union for misappropriation of funds and to advise the union if their activities are conforming to the law.



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.

(...)

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.


This pretty much dictates that what you are requiring is illegal under UN law.


• Prosecution for inappropriate and extremist behaviour –

Nations may deter or punish individuals or groups according to their national customs.


Relatively speaking, this is already permittable with out the added resolution. However


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.


would imply that, while you can punish them for criminal behaviour, doing anything else in is in violation of previous laws.


• Any member of leadership or management in a trade union should be police checked –

If positions such as teachers are in need of police checks, so should Trade Union leaders and managers. If any number of these went on strike, the nation in question could come under extreme danger. Because of the growing threat from terrorist groups and other extremist establishments, security is an issue we need to focus our efforts and resources on.

Oh my goddess is this illegal. Under Clauses 2,3,4 and 7 of The Rights of Labour Unions, the government is not permitted to interfere in any of this as long as no laws are broken. Clause 4 dictates that the government can not interfere in the election of the leadership or management of a union, Clause 3 indicates that they are fully capable of joining international federations without interference from the government, Clause 2 says that Unions have the right to go on strike, without interference from governments and Clause 7 says you can't make laws that override any of these rights.


Suffice to say that not only do I not support your proposal (on the grounds that you are trying to use scare tactics to screw the workers over), it is (in my opinion, and I am not a qualified UN lawyer) almost entirely illegal and should be deleted.

Therefore, I have but a single comment with which to summarize all points of my disagreement not covered by the most eloquent words of the aforementioned psychic, and it goes thus.....

*music of a band the name of which she doesn't remember at the moment* "Come one, come all.... to 1984!" Tell Big Brother I said "hi" for me, will ya?:cool:

Therefore, I have but a single comment with which to summarize all points of my disagreement not covered by the most eloquent words of the aforementioned psychic, and it goes thus.....

*music of a band the name of which she doesn't remember at the moment* "Come one, come all.... to 1984!" Tell Big Brother I said "hi" for me, will ya?:cool:

(smirk) About six to eight months ago I wrote a two and a half page post in defence of The Rights Of Labour Unions, and most of it stuck in my head :}

My government has a green light? Sweet!

Vroom, Vroom!
Are you a puppet of HotRodia?:D

Why bother stopping at stopping all foreign influences:confused: Why not just get rid of Labour unions!:mp5:
GET RID OF lABOUR UNIONS AND LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!
Because it's currently illegal?

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

GET RID OF lABOUR UNIONS AND LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!

Taking away unions would remove the ability of most people to speak for themselves and be heard. Workers cannot exert any power to protect themselves individually, because in the vast majority of cases the balance of power between individual workers and their employers is massively skewed. Many employers can easily afford to fire one person if they get too demanding and find a replacement, whereas to the employee, being fired is a massive cost - but if an entire workforce strikes, that is going to have an impact on the boss.

:) It dosn't have to be Illegal Black World or Myopia. Taking labour unions away would free the little man to speak for himself. Not only that but it would save thousands of money. If it is so wrong to destroy these blood sucking leeches, then you are saying it is wrong to sensibly control your own country. Therefore I demand you rethink and retract your comments:gundge:

There is a resolution that protects the rights of labour unions, so when they say it is illegal, they actually mean it is illegal in all UN member nations.

There is a resolution that protects the rights of labour unions, so when they say it is illegal, they actually mean it is illegal in all UN member nations.
Aye, I do.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

if you really want to make unions illegal across the UN it can be done.

first you need to repeal all the existing resolutions that mention unions. quite a difficult task given most members attachment to democracy.

then you will have to get a proposal passed that will ban them.

A proposal to ban unions would conflict with a previous resolution to protect them. To ban unions you must first repeal the resolution protecting them. Otherwise it would be illegal.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Yet again you have found a flaw, but I have a solution. Why not get people who feel the same way to join a new region, only open to those who agree, and propose it to the UN?
What on earth would that accomplish? You'd still need to repeal the previous resolutions, and you'd still need the same amount of delegate votes. If anything, you would be decreasing your chances by compacting the distribution of nations that would be for such repeals into a single region.

Then how about a proposal to make banning unions legal. While I may be a UN member, I most certainly do not believe it should be illegal.
I hope you may reply to this, so that we can argue over why it should and shouldn't be banned.
Optischer:upyours:

Communist countries would welcome this decision, so would other left-wing countries. Unions may stand up for the little man in the real world, but only after endless red tape and useless conventions.
If unions cannot be banned, at least we should define some more restrictive rules to make sure they perform their job efficiently, and without red tape.
Optischer:mad::upyours::mad:

Ok. Can I suggest you go and read the resolution I mentioned? The ones that makes it illegal to ban labour unions. Because all of the questions you asked are pretty moot points, since that resolution protects labour unions from pretty much everything you are suggesting and have suggested :}

UN law very rarely affects non-UN nations so a non-un nation is already free to work with or without unions.

But then the UN surely should never make laws that might affect foreign non-UN countries? That would make more sense!

The UN never (or hardly ever) makes laws that affect non Member nations. The Rights Of Labour Unions ONLY extends to UN member nations - not anywhere else.

So where have you got the idea that it extends past that?

It will accomplish a community, that wants a fairer world like the UN, but unlike it, not want more red tape.
The less red tape the stronger the economies.
The stronger the economies the faster it will grow.
Sacrifices will have to be made, but regardless we need no more unionism and more decent hard working people.
Optischer

I find it utterly disgusting that you have equated unionism with lack of hard working people. I find the opposite because protection of workers rights leads to feelings of security in the job increasing productivity, stronger economies and fast growth and Union activists in my OOC place of work are amongst the hardest workers for the company.

If i find such a proposal submitted, i will first of all report it for being illegal and if it ever reaches the floor, heaven forbid, i will argue and persuade people to vote against such a blatant act of corporate licka$$ing

Banning unionism has been proven to improve the economy! Look at economic levels during Margaret Thatchers 3 terms as UK Prime Minister. She kept a strict leash on them, so why not get rid of the red tape responsibilities of such a crazy world???????

POST THE TEXT OF YOUR REPEAL. Then we will discuss it.

Banning unionism has been proven to improve the economy! Look at economic levels during Margaret Thatchers 3 terms as UK Prime Minister. She kept a strict leash on them, so why not get rid of the red tape responsibilities of such a crazy world???????
Everything that Thatcher did would be allowed under the resolutions standing at the moment.

Well then, maybe we should not ban them, or dispose of them, but take away as much rights as possible from them, therefore not eliminating the unions, but restricting what they can do!

Ok. Draft a proposal based on that.

Everything that Thatcher did would be allowed under the resolutions standing at the moment.

Really? She banned certain people from being in unions (violation of Clause 1, I think?) then she set about breaking strikes (either legally or illegaly, depending on your perspective) which is a violation of another clause, and then she set about interfering with the day to day running of the unions, which is almost certainly a violation of another clause (I can look all this up properly later if people doubt me).

If you could find these clauses and wire a telegram with them to me pallatium, I would be more than grateful to supply an alternative!

I have done so. And now I wish I had saved a copy so I could post it here as well. But hey - even Queens make mistakes sometimes :}

She illegalised closed shops, mandated that all votes to strike be made by secret ballots and made legislations about balloting, and negotiated with certain unions to bring about "no strike" policies whithin such unions (especially in the army and police unions), and banned flying pickets. Nobody was banned from joining trades unions.

The clause concerned that may be considered broken by Thatcher is:
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.
Nothing is said about ballots for striking, closed shops and government negotiotion with unions. Consider that interference is defined as:
an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes. . It doesn't mean the same as involvement; government can legislate, as long as it doesn't impede these rights, as per:

Article six:
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.
and seven:
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.

I don't the laws of the type that she introduced would impair the guarantees of the resolution.

She illegalised closed shops, mandated that all votes to strike be made by secret ballots and made legislations about balloting, and negotiated with certain unions to bring about "no strike" policies whithin such unions (especially in the army and police unions), and banned flying pickets. Nobody was banned from joining trades unions.

(cut)

I don't the laws of the type that she introduced would impair the guarantees of the resolution.

I would disagree.

"no strike" policies are a clear violation of Clause 2.

Closed shops I will accept are not permitted under Clause 5.

And making laws to deal with the way unions hold ballots or anything else can be interpretted as doing something to "impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution" - Clause 4 protects the right of Unions to run their business the way they want to.

But the resolution doesn't protect balloting for strikes; it is not provided in the resolution.

And the no strike policies are whithin the Unions, they are not legislated by the government.

But the resolution doesn't protect balloting for strikes; it is not provided in the resolution.


Actually - to some extent it does protect them. The resolution calls for protection of


when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.


which would include deciding when to strike or not. So you can't force ballotting rules on them, because it would be interfering with their activities and programs.


And the no strike policies are whithin the Unions, they are not legislated by the government.

Yeah - but while the government can ask for these policies, they can't force them on the unions - that would be a violation of Clause 2. The Unions have to agree to the no strike policy for it to be legal.

Yeah - but while the government can ask for these policies, they can't force them on the unions - that would be a violation of Clause 2. The Unions have to agree to the no strike policy for it to be legal.

Which is the case

So you can't force ballotting rules on them, because it would be interfering with their activities and programs.

Yes you can, as long as it doesn't impede the voting process. Thatcher's laws just ensured a secret ballot; nothing impeding about that. And anyway, I interpret activities and programs to mean social activities and event's programs; not the balloting of strikes.

Yes you can, as long as it doesn't impede the voting process. Thatcher's laws just ensured a secret ballot; nothing impeding about that.


What if we don't have secret ballots and don't want them? I would suggest that is impairing our ability to conduct our own affairs.


And anyway, I interpret activities and programs to mean social activities and event's programs; not the balloting of strikes.

I don't - I interpret it as anything the Union does, and consequently I would say it's in violation of it.

Just as an aside - would this be a good indication of a need of a central body to interpret resolutions? Or does it work better like that cause everyone does their own thing?

Just as an aside - would this be a good indication of a need of a central body to interpret resolutions? Or does it work better like that cause everyone does their own thing?

The latter

(RL again)

as i grew up during mrs thatchers time in power i can still see her fingerprints in current government policy towards unions.

even new labour still retains the acts she put in place to prevent wildcat strikes and flying pickets.

i'm also a member of a NHS union and they still use secret ballots.

(now back to the game)

we could all look at the same resolution and take a different view from it. some people could even find a loop hole that you could fly a hercules transport plane through.

i know a UN court to clarify disagreements with resolutions has been discussed already and i feel that theres some need for it as long as it retains an advisory role.

is it possible to make the UN amend clauses? because if it is, Optischer might force his way through with mega support. I don't necessarily think Optischers right, just a bit to extreme. Some of you guys are maybe too non contsructive-criticism minded. Anyway, Optischer has vowed, apparently, not to come back on as himself to make sure it's clear before he posts again. I think if you can, ban him. Oh, and by the way, if you think you can guess what the line underneath my name is goingto say, wire me your suggestion, and I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.
Quadramos
order of Opt

you can't change a resolution once its passed. you still need to sucessfully repeal it and then put a replacement act in its place.

thats hows its done here. therefore if Optischer wants to try this its his right if he has two approvals to his name.