NationStates Jolt Archive

Re-evaluation by the Optischerian Government

I put forth to public discussion my idea on allowing UN countries to ban and/or eliminate Unions and Unionism of all kinds.
What?
I propose that every resolution that protects the Unions be either amended or repealed, so that countries who join the UN are allowed to eliminate and ban any and all unions at their dismissal.
You must do this each resolution at a time or else your proposal is illegal.
I believe that it will allow econmies to grow quicker, will reduce countless red tape, allow those who cannot express their views due to popular majority issues to speak.
How?
It may frighten some workers, but they will be more independent, they will be more financially secure, and they will be more liberated.
As, I believe, Myopia pointed out, they will not be more liberated. The inequality between the boss and the worker would make it a rather pointless exercise for one person to improve their lot. They will not be more financially secure if the boss decides to fire the person asking for a raise because one man is more easily replaced than one union.
Surely Capitalist countries and Communist countries would welcome this?! Let's make the world a better place,
Optischer
Superfluous.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Proposed by: Optischer

Description: I put forth to public discussion my idea on allowing UN countries to ban and/or eliminate Unions and Unionism of all kinds.
I propose that every resolution that protects the Unions be either amended or repealed, so that countries who join the UN are allowed to eliminate and ban any and all unions at their dismissal.
I believe that it will allow econmies to grow quicker, will reduce countless red tape, allow those who cannot express their views due to popular majority issues to speak. It may frighten some workers, but they will be more independent, they will be more financially secure, and they will be more liberated.
Surely Capitalist countries and Communist countries would welcome this?!
Let's make the world a better place,
Optischer

Yes! Yes! Let capitalism ring free and un-restrained by pesky working men and women organising themselves collectively. How dare they do so, don't they know that all business, both commercial and global must be conducted in the interests of the elites and corporate tycoons of society.

And oh, what wonderful arguments are presented in favour of this idea. Let's look at them shall we:

I propose that every resolution that protects the Unions be either amended or repealed, so that countries who join the UN are allowed to eliminate and ban any and all unions at their dismissal.

That's a lot of resolutions, I'd be surprised if you would be able to persuade a clear majority of people to endorse at least 5 repeals (the minimum number I estimate is required to put forwards your proposal).

I believe that it will allow econmies to grow quicker, will reduce countless red tape, allow those who cannot express their views due to popular majority issues to speak. It may frighten some workers, but they will be more independent, they will be more financially secure, and they will be more liberated.

Oh of course, how silly of me:) I failed to realise that unions = red tape. Furthermore, I was unaware that the removal of a workers right to unionise would in fact assist democracy in the labour movement. Working men and women coming together to struggle collectively for greater justice and better working conditions? Such an anti-democratic concept I agree. I wonder how removing the organisations that stand up for them will make them more financially secure? Or for that matter liberated? I was always of the impression that a union was voluntary (except in closed shops, which are rare).

Surely Capitalist countries and Communist countries would welcome this?!
Let's make the world a better place,

Is this a rhetorical question or taking the P on a spectacular scale.

In conclusion, though the delegate of Compadria apologises for his relentless and quite un-called for sarcasm and snideness, both qualities he would never normally endorse, he pleads the ludicrousness of the proposal as a mitigating circumstance and opposes it therefore.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Long live strong-union Compadria!

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Thoroughly illegal, repeals need to be separate. Go to the UN resolutions listings, find the resolution you want to repeal, and click the button to repeal it.

It may frighten some workers, but they will be more independent, they will be more financially secure, and they will be more liberated.

This is just a lie. You know full well that without unions, employers will be able to force longer hours, lower pay, and poorer conditions on workers - that's why you can make the claim that destroying unions will make for bigger profits.

If unions are so awful for workers, why are workers so keen on them? If you're opposed to unions, please, present real arguments as to why they shouldn't exist (for instance, you could argue that unionisation by workers selling their labour is equivalent to collaborative price-fixing by companies selling the same goods, or something to that effect). But don't peddle this lie that you're doing the workers a favour.

Sheesh

See this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

READ IT
READ THE PASSED RESOLUTIONS
When you're done that, come back and start posting your proposals. You thus far have placed 4 different posts with equally useless values to this United Nations for defying at least one of those rules.

Sheesh

See this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

READ IT
READ THE PASSED RESOLUTIONS
When you're done that, come back and start posting your proposals. You thus far have placed 4 different posts with equally useless values to this United Nations for defying at least one of those rules.
wouldnt that mean being over the 3 strikes and out?

wouldnt that mean being over the 3 strikes and out?

He'd need to actually submit to use a strike.

wouldnt that mean being over the 3 strikes and out?

Well - no, cause there is no limit to the amount of strikes a union can engage in under the current resolution.





(no one gets my humour)

He'd need to actually submit to use a strike.
dang, so the annoying (insert any word here) is going to still be around...

I was always of the impression that a union was voluntary (except in closed shops, which are rare).

Actually the ability to form a union is voluntary. The workers would need a majority vote, notify the local chapter of the corrosponding union of their intent to join, notify their management of intent...ect. Once a union contract is established at a place of business admittance into the union is required unless it is under extreme circumstances and rather rare. Most union contracts go up for review every 3 to 5 years.

OOC: Such examples are: Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Teacher's Union, all trade unions as well. Teamsters and the UFCW being the two largest in the United States, respectively.

dang, so the annoying (insert any word here) is going to still be around...

Well, one of three things are going to happen:
1) He'll read the rules and start submitting within the rules - in which case, he'll just be another person to disagree with (judging from the opinions he's stated so far)
2) He decides its not worth the effort to stick around and leaves
3) He continues to post along the lines he's already posting and might get a few warnings and/or bans for various things - perhaps including spamming, intentional breaking of the rules and not listening to mods.

Well - no, cause there is no limit to the amount of strikes a union can engage in under the current resolution.

(no one gets my humour)

I got it. I even chuckled. :D

Well - no, cause there is no limit to the amount of strikes a union can engage in under the current resolution.





(no one gets my humour)

*wonders how Optischer can be a union....