NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeals UN Resolution #38 "The Rights of Labour Unions"

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

NOTING that several UN resolutions are currently in place to protect the individuals rights, both personal and workplace.

These include:
UN RES #6 which guarantees -
The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice; The right to bodily safety from one's employer.

UN RES #8 which states "all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed."

UN RES #12 which protects "...people from discrimination in all parts of life."

UN RES #59 which provides many workers rights, to include pay for overtime, limiting required time at work, limiting on call hours.

UN RES #69 which protects pay and benefits for both sexes.

UN RES #92 which recongnises "that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure" and further stating that governments that do not do as such "should therefore not be protected by international law"

NOTING UN RES #49 "The Rights and Duties of UN States" that "Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

CONCLUDING that such rights as the above are exceedingly great and protective of the individual workers rights. That abolishment of all national labor unions would also be extremely disastorous to the local economic atmosphere.

URGES all UN nations to review legislation regulating labor unions to better serve the populace of that nation.

**********************************************************

If you have some insight, input, or grievances then let me know. I'm not looking to inflame anyone, so please refrain from making such an attempt yourself.

If you have some insight, input, or grievances then let me know. I'm not looking to inflame anyone, so please refrain from making such an attempt yourself.

I would be open to discussing Res #38, but I would rather see a list of arguments against its provisions than a list of provisions in other resolutions. Would you care to make your reasoning more to the point?

Please keep in mind while reading the following points, that the first point is primary in my mind. The point of this is that such an in depth resolution is not needed due to the provisions that are already established.

Sovereignty Points:
• Considering the provisions established by this amazing list of UN Resolutions, why should the UN tell every sovereign nation in the world that they are required to provide such a grande foundation for labour unions? Considering the vast demographics and geopolitical environment, I think a simplified foundational resolution would be in order if anything.
• The UN can protect basic human rights. It can ask a country to stop the production of WMDs. However, unionisation is not a basic human right, but a created right. Nor is its absence a threat to civilization.
• This proposal gives to much power because the unions could then force businesses to only hire union members.
• There is historical precedent that if unions are mandatory they will become political bodies, engaged more in enriching their leaders than supporting worker rights. Indeed, while unions frequently initially form to combat an injustice in their industry, once the problem that caused their formation has been dealt with many unions do become associations of a less productive work force. Some way must be made for unions to be opposed; otherwise they stomp all over the same honest workers they are supposed to be protecting. An example of this is unions where membership is required to work in the industry. If a worker refuses to join and pay what are usually exorbitant dues and fees, the unions can and do keep the worker out of the business. Unions MUST be prevented from doing this... but enacting any law to regulate them is a violation of Articles 4 and 7, which prohibit interfering with unions.
• In addition this resolution does nothing in the way of recognizing lockouts, mass firings in response to striking employees, or the rights of employees not to join unions.
• Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labour unions, both nationally and internationally.
• International unions are a bad idea. What may be fair salary, relative to various ranges of cost of living, in one country may be unfair in another.

Please keep in mind while reading the following points, that the first point is primary in my mind. The point of this is that such an in depth resolution is not needed due to the provisions that are already established.

While this point is valid, as strictly there isn't any redundancy, I doubt that many delegates would want to repeal on that basis alone. You should tailor your draft to address the negative effects of Res #38 if you want to pass your repeal. Convince people that the resolution is harmful.

As I said, I tend to have some issues with Res #38, so I might support a repeal. But since you obviously thought a lot about it, I would suggest you write your points on the draft first, and then we can discuss it.

• International unions are a bad idea. What may be fair salary, relative to various ranges of cost of living, in one country may be unfair in another.

You don't actually think that international labour unions campaign for better wages and conditions and equal wages for specific jobs without taking cost of living and currency differentials into account, do you?

Thanks for the comments guys. Even the condescending ones :P. That's why I've posted it here. Any more input and/or grievances are still welcome. I would prefer though, that if you do have a grievance with my line of thinking to pose it as a suggestive comment rather than a "Do you really think!?" type comment.

Please keep in mind while reading the following points, that the first point is primary in my mind. The point of this is that such an in depth resolution is not needed due to the provisions that are already established.

Sovereignty Points:
• Considering the provisions established by this amazing list of UN Resolutions, why should the UN tell every sovereign nation in the world that they are required to provide such a grande foundation for labour unions? Considering the vast demographics and geopolitical environment, I think a simplified foundational resolution would be in order if anything.

The other resolutions are very worthy, yet they fail to address the issue of the legality of trades unions, therefore that is why it is needed.

• The UN can protect basic human rights. It can ask a country to stop the production of WMDs. However, unionisation is not a basic human right, but a created right. Nor is its absence a threat to civilization.

I beg to differ: The right of working men and women to bargain collectively, strike and take democratic decisions as a whole, as well as having a representative body to represent them are human rights of the highest order. Furthermore, by your logic, Business Confederations, representing employers, could be banned. Is that fair?

• This proposal gives to much power because the unions could then force businesses to only hire union members.
• There is historical precedent that if unions are mandatory they will become political bodies, engaged more in enriching their leaders than supporting worker rights. Indeed, while unions frequently initially form to combat an injustice in their industry, once the problem that caused their formation has been dealt with many unions do become associations of a less productive work force. Some way must be made for unions to be opposed; otherwise they stomp all over the same honest workers they are supposed to be protecting. An example of this is unions where membership is required to work in the industry. If a worker refuses to join and pay what are usually exorbitant dues and fees, the unions can and do keep the worker out of the business. Unions MUST be prevented from doing this... but enacting any law to regulate them is a violation of Articles 4 and 7, which prohibit interfering with unions.
• In addition this resolution does nothing in the way of recognizing lockouts, mass firings in response to striking employees, or the rights of employees not to join unions.

The fact is all members who are being represented by a union should join it and show solidarity with their fellow workers, as well as justify their payment of the union fee. As for your other points, they are good and perfectly acceptable.

• Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labour unions, both nationally and internationally.
• International unions are a bad idea. What may be fair salary, relative to various ranges of cost of living, in one country may be unfair in another.

I refer to the comment of Glutopia for my answer.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The government of St Edmund also feels that rules regarding trade unions are something that should be handled at a national rather than an international level.

The Empire of Forgottenlands suggests that you focus more on these issues with UNR 38 than the capabilities of other resolutions. Considering that none of the ones you listed have anything to do with unionization of workers, you fail within the body of the text to address the key purpose of the resolution you are attempting to repeal: Unions. Showing the flaws in UNR 38 as a primary argument and noting the other protected rights as a secondary argument would be much better suited for your purposes. While the Empire agrees with many of your sentiments, we shall not look further into this repeal until such a focus has been abtained, as we do not feel this proposal will get anywhere without it.

The other resolutions are very worthy, yet they fail to address the issue of the legality of trades unions, therefore that is why it is needed.

I beg to differ: The right of working men and women to bargain collectively, strike and take democratic decisions as a whole, as well as having a representative body to represent them are human rights of the highest order.

Precisely! Which is exactly why I point this right, which is established in several of the quoted resolutions. I think you might be missing the point that this resolution doesn't even protect such individual rights, but rather it establishes these rights for an entity that by all measures is an extremist group. Especially considering the fact that many are forced into sumbission to union when they may not want it. Then forced to pay union dues to support an entity that takes extreme political positions. Endorsing, and even funding political parties that may be extremely inconsistent with that individuals beliefs. This isn't even a straw man argument. This has been proven to happen. So the human rights issue absolutely does stand in the striking of this resolution.

The fact is all members who are being represented by a union should join it and show solidarity with their fellow workers, as well as justify their payment of the union fee. As for your other points, they are good and perfectly acceptable.

I absolutely agree. All workers should have a strong showing of solidarity by maintaining a representation by unions. I'll even condede that it would be proper for all fellow workers to pay union dues. In agreement so far. However, the only difference is the use of the word should. They in fact should, but should not be forced or coerced into it. It is a principle I have heard commonly referred to as freedom.

As far as wages, and cost of living diffs. Point taken. I would however, should a replacement for this come to pass, want to see this boldly outlined.

The Empire of Forgottenlands suggests that you focus more on these issues with UNR 38 than the capabilities of other resolutions. Considering that none of the ones you listed have anything to do with unionization of workers, you fail within the body of the text to address the key purpose of the resolution you are attempting to repeal: Unions. Showing the flaws in UNR 38 as a primary argument and noting the other protected rights as a secondary argument would be much better suited for your purposes. While the Empire agrees with many of your sentiments, we shall not look further into this repeal until such a focus has been abtained, as we do not feel this proposal will get anywhere without it.

Thank you Forgottenlands. Your remarks are noted, and I have received several telegrams expressing the same concerns. As I do not have a set time for this to be proposed yet, I will continue to fine tune it and present it once again as a draft to this body.

Precisely! Which is exactly why I point this right, which is established in several of the quoted resolutions. I think you might be missing the point that this resolution doesn't even protect such individual rights, but rather it establishes these rights for an entity that by all measures is an extremist group. Especially considering the fact that many are forced into sumbission to union when they may not want it. Then forced to pay union dues to support an entity that takes extreme political positions. Endorsing, and even funding political parties that may be extremely inconsistent with that individuals beliefs. This isn't even a straw man argument. This has been proven to happen. So the human rights issue absolutely does stand in the striking of this resolution.

I don't think it's fair nor accurate to describe unions as 'extremist groups' as this is a very generalised statement and rather vague. Overall, a union is not an individual, it is an entity and thus applying individual rights ideas to it is not really productive. If you want to safe-guard individual rights within the context of a union, you are still going to have to address it as a union-wide matter. The individuals who join unions usually share the common interests in ensuring their rights and jobs are protected, thus for pragmatic reasons, most would be prepared to support their union, even if they weren't entirely in agreement with its political objectives.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Aside from the obvious issue with all this - that these resolutions only protect workers while they resolutions. If anyone of them is repealed, your arguement is weakend, and if they are all repealed your arguement collapses.

But........


UN RES #6 which guarantees -
The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice; The right to bodily safety from one's employer.


That does not protect people form being fired for no reason. It does not prevent people from being asked to do things that are not in their job. It does not prevent employers from abusing their staff in other ways.


UN RES #8 which states "all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed."


This has NO relevence at all. How does having some way in which you are governed relate to labour unions? (Unless you are making a National Sovereignty pitch, in which case I am going to ignore you anyway)


UN RES #12 which protects "...people from discrimination in all parts of life."


The resolution is called Gay Rights. No one in the right mind can link that to the rights of workers, unless they are being discriminated against for being gay (which I admit would be protected, but there are people who might be discriminated against for other reasons)


UN RES #59 which provides many workers rights, to include pay for overtime, limiting required time at work, limiting on call hours.


But only in relation to working hours. Not conditions, not travel and other things.


UN RES #69 which protects pay and benefits for both sexes.


Yeah - but that just protects the rights of the employer to screw over both sexes equally. No where does it say the pay has to be fair (as long as the employer pays both men and women 1 guilder per week, he is not in violation of this resolution).


UN RES #92 which recongnises "that a major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure" and further stating that governments that do not do as such "should therefore not be protected by international law"


Now you are just clutching at straws (no offence)


NOTING UN RES #49 "The Rights and Duties of UN States" that "Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."


And?


CONCLUDING that such rights as the above are exceedingly great and protective of the individual workers rights. That abolishment of all national labor unions would also be extremely disastorous to the local economic atmosphere.


Ok....... what???? You are wanting to repeal "the rights of labour unions" and you are aruging in DEFENCE of them in your repeal?

Are you insane?


URGES all UN nations to review legislation regulating labor unions to better serve the populace of that nation.


I will review them, and find that labour unions are pretty much the only weapon employees have in the battle for equal treatment with management.

So - no.


If you have some insight, input, or grievances then let me know. I'm not looking to inflame anyone, so please refrain from making such an attempt yourself.


ok - then sorry about the insane part. But your entire arguement seems to be saying "we don't need them.... oh wait - we do".

Please keep in mind while reading the following points, that the first point is primary in my mind. The point of this is that such an in depth resolution is not needed due to the provisions that are already established.


I disagree - labour unions are bodies of people, not single people. Quite a lot of resolutions protect personal rights, but not group rights (at work at least)



• Considering the provisions established by this amazing list of UN Resolutions, why should the UN tell every sovereign nation in the world that they are required to provide such a grande foundation for labour unions? Considering the vast demographics and geopolitical environment, I think a simplified foundational resolution would be in order if anything.


The resolution doesn't do that. It says the government is NOT PERMITTED to tell labour unions how to form, when to form, how to run themselves or chose their members. Its puts the power in the hands of the unions and takes it out of the governments. Which is where it should be - if all unions were government controlled there would be no point in having them.


• The UN can protect basic human rights. It can ask a country to stop the production of WMDs


No it can't.


. However, unionisation is not a basic human right, but a created right. Nor is its absence a threat to civilization.


Talk to people who are entirely at the mercy of their employers because there are no jobs, and ask them if the right to work under suitable conditions is a basic human right or not. Talk to people who are worked to the bone for minimum recompense and have no recourse because they have no way of collective bargining.


• This proposal gives to much power because the unions could then force businesses to only hire union members.


That's possible. But the resolution (as far as I am aware) does not state that, and does not say that shops can refuse to employ staff who are in unions.


• There is historical precedent that if unions are mandatory they will become political bodies


Where does it say they are mandatory?


, engaged more in enriching their leaders than supporting worker rights. Indeed, while unions frequently initially form to combat an injustice in their industry, once the problem that caused their formation has been dealt with many unions do become associations of a less productive work force.


And quite a lot of evidence suggests that when people are cowed, in fear of losing their jobs if they even DARE to voice some opposition, that the work force is even less productive.


Some way must be made for unions to be opposed; otherwise they stomp all over the same honest workers they are supposed to be protecting.


And the moment you give any power to the government, you might as well ban all unions. Simply because the control is taken away from those who most need it.


An example of this is unions where membership is required to work in the industry. If a worker refuses to join and pay what are usually exorbitant dues and fees, the unions can and do keep the worker out of the business.


And if people dislike this, they can quit the union - eventually it will come round to accept it is wrong. Supply and demand and democracy in action, all without the requirement of the government intervention.


Unions MUST be prevented from doing this... but enacting any law to regulate them is a violation of Articles 4 and 7, which prohibit interfering with unions.


Those also protect the rights of the union from the government saying "you might think that, but we are going to make a law that says you can't actually demand more money for extra hours - just deal with it"


• In addition this resolution does nothing in the way of recognizing lockouts, mass firings in response to striking employees, or the rights of employees not to join unions.



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.


I think that kind of kills that arguement.


• International unions are a bad idea. What may be fair salary, relative to various ranges of cost of living, in one country may be unfair in another.


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


This says federations of unions, not ONE BIG union. If you are going to argue against it, at least read it first (with a dictionary if necessary)

The government of St Edmund also feels that rules regarding trade unions are something that should be handled at a national rather than an international level.

Why?

No, my dear and excitable friend. I am saying what I spelled out quite clearly that Unions are needed in some instances, regions, nations and what have you. To set in stone as a foundational piece of legislation such an extreme resolution is ridiculous in light of the many different resolutions already establishing many of these "rights". Which I am sure that every person on Nation States knows that it is ridiculous to even insinuate that all, half, even a quarter of those repeals would be repealed succesfully.

Precisely! Which is exactly why I point this right, which is established in several of the quoted resolutions. I think you might be missing the point that this resolution doesn't even protect such individual rights, but rather it establishes these rights for an entity that by all measures is an extremist group. Especially considering the fact that many are forced into sumbission to union when they may not want it. Then forced to pay union dues to support an entity that takes extreme political positions. Endorsing, and even funding political parties that may be extremely inconsistent with that individuals beliefs. This isn't even a straw man argument. This has been proven to happen. So the human rights issue absolutely does stand in the striking of this resolution.


But now imagine you work in a factory with 20,000 people. And 10,000 of them are fired because they refuse to do two more hours a week.

Wouldn't you like to have some sort of organization that could back you up - go on strike and force the company to reconsider, rather than just being dumped back on the stree with no money, food or water?

Unions can do bad. But they can also do more good than you could possibly imagine - and thats why they should be kept and kept the way they are.

You can argue that the government would be impartial - that any laws they pass to restrict unions would be impartial and fair - but that's a lie. Any business who contributes enough to the government will get listened to, and they will be the ones making the rules.


I absolutely agree. All workers should have a strong showing of solidarity by maintaining a representation by unions. I'll even condede that it would be proper for all fellow workers to pay union dues. In agreement so far. However, the only difference is the use of the word should. They in fact should, but should not be forced or coerced into it. It is a principle I have heard commonly referred to as freedom.


The same principle of freedom that requires workers to be treated fairly by their bosses. Without the protection of a larger group, everyone would be an individual at the mercy of their employers.

Where is the freedom in that?

No, my dear and excitable friend. I am saying what I spelled out quite clearly that Unions are needed in some instances, regions, nations and what have you. To set in stone as a foundational piece of legislation such an extreme resolution is ridiculous in light of the many different resolutions already establishing many of these "rights". Which I am sure that every person on Nation States knows that it is ridiculous to even insinuate that all, half, even a quarter of those repeals would be repealed succesfully.

Assuming this was aimed at me (people have described me as excitable and emotional, but hey - it's only the fundemental right not to be abused and mistreated at work so I can't imagine why I would care) you are entirely wrong.

Only two resolutions protect the rights of workers in their jobs - The Rights Of Labour Unions and The 40 Hour Work Week.

The 40 Hour Work Week makes no mention of terms and conditions, of pay and other such things. It only says you can not be forced to work more than 40 hours as a standard week, and not more than 80 with overtime.

The Rights of Labour Unions protects the group that will stand up for single workers, rather than letting everyone fend for themselves. Collective bargnining is by far and away the most effective way to govern management/labour relationships, simply because the majority of the power in a company is held by the senior staff - the CEO, the directors, the General Managers (and so forth). They decide everything, and if it is done at a single employee level, it will leave the system wide open to abuse and mistreatment without being affected by any of the other resolutions you have mentioned.

And this does leave it at the national level - it lets the workers decide how they will run their unions (within the laws of the nation), and it doesn't let government or private interests do it.


And yeah - given the resolutions you picked I am pretty sure that only 3 of them would have a hope of being repealed - the others are all too ingrained and too good.

But given that only one of them applies to the rights of workers, your arguement that the others won't be repealed doesn't actually mean anything.

But now imagine you work in a factory with 20,000 people. And 10,000 of them are fired because they refuse to do two more hours a week.

Wouldn't you like to have some sort of organization that could back you up - go on strike and force the company to reconsider, rather than just being dumped back on the stree with no money, food or water?

Am I being payed attention to hear? Economics, and the ever changing tide of progress. No, before you take this out of context, I am not saying that a 10,000 man lay off is progress. Where the economy is not restricted, due to over regulation, it always bounces back. Have you ever heard of companies with unions having huge lay offs, pension cuts, file for bankruptcy? Hmm, let's think about that now. It stems, primarily, from the abuse given by labor uinions. Does my country have unions, and would it continue to after a repeal of this? Absolutely. Not near as restrictive as are currently in place though.

I'll throw out a straw man as well, since we're all doing it. How about the 10,000 that either got fired for not joining the union, or were not even hired? Simply for not paying the monthly dues, while they worked all the overtime, and their production numbers greatly exceeded that of the union workers?

You can argue that the government would be impartial - that any laws they pass to restrict unions would be impartial and fair - but that's a lie. Any business who contributes enough to the government will get listened to, and they will be the ones making the rules.

That's a lie? That's more of a personal, unfounded belief, and with such evidence as "That's a lie" you choose to impose your belief system on my nation? You are also correct that "Any business who contributes" such as a member funded union "will get listened to". That was precisely my point on the first page.

The same principle of freedom that requires workers to be treated fairly by their bosses. Without the protection of a larger group, everyone would be an individual at the mercy of their employers.

I pretty much think that's how it goes now anyways isn't it? I mean, I actually work in the real world, and for a non union company at that. So alot of this is extremely baseless. I can wholeheartedly tell you that I am not "at the mercy of my employers".

i can broadly agree with the ambassador from Camobush. This is an issue that needs looked at properly so a workers rights can be better protected. theres already existing resolutions but more can be done.

As a social democrat i can say that workers are encouraged to join a union in Kirisubo. However employers and unions work together to improve pay and conditions which is a lot better than them being at loggerheads.

Not all nations have this level of employer-union co-operation so i would support an repeal so a better and fairer replacement can be put forward.

Kaigan Miromuta, UN ambassador from Kirisubo

Am I being payed attention to hear? Economics, and the ever changing tide of progress. No, before you take this out of context, I am not saying that a 10,000 man lay off is progress. Where the economy is not restricted, due to over regulation, it always bounces back. Have you ever heard of companies with unions having huge lay offs, pension cuts, file for bankruptcy? Hmm, let's think about that now. It stems, primarily, from the abuse given by labor uinions. Does my country have unions, and would it continue to after a repeal of this? Absolutely. Not near as restrictive as are currently in place though.


Yeah - sometimes there are layoffs in companies with unions, but they are generally organized and discussed. They are not rammed through without consultation or without any consideration of the lives being ruined.

And I think you are wrong about the abuse from labour unions - it might happen, but the abuse by management who can run a company in to the ground, totally and utterly screw over the workers, and still get billions of guilders in bonuses is also a problem - one you don't appear to give a flying **** about.


I'll throw out a straw man as well, since we're all doing it. How about the 10,000 that either got fired for not joining the union, or were not even hired? Simply for not paying the monthly dues, while they worked all the overtime, and their production numbers greatly exceeded that of the union workers?


What straw man arguement? Almost everything you have said has been bollocks and not remotely true. What can you show of mine that is such an arguement? Workers need protecting from management, and because generally they can't do it on their own, they need a group to speak for them.




That's a lie? That's more of a personal, unfounded belief, and with such evidence as "That's a lie" you choose to impose your belief system on my nation? You are also correct that "Any business who contributes" such as a member funded union "will get listened to". That was precisely my point on the first page.


Are you saying that no government has ever bent the rules to favour one private enterprise over another because one gave more money than the other? Not once? Ever? In the whole history of NationStates? Are you actually that deluded to believe that the government would not gladly fuck over the workers of a company if the company donated several hundreds of thousands of guilders to their campaign?



I pretty much think that's how it goes now anyways isn't it? I mean, I actually work in the real world, and for a non union company at that. So alot of this is extremely baseless. I can wholeheartedly tell you that I am not "at the mercy of my employers".

(ooc, obviously) Surprisingly, I work in the real world too. I have worked for a company with a union, and a company without. The one without the union had a tendancy to fire staff for the most minor and stupid of reasons as it neared the end of the holiday season, so they would not be required to pay the bonuses. I suspect if they had had union backing, it would not have been so easy to do.
The company I work for now has no union, and my salary, job requirements, terms and conditions and everything are dictated to me by the bosses. And if I don't like it, my alternatives are complain to the people who hired me - those doing the dictating - or quit.
And again - if there was a union protecting my interests, I think it would be a lot, lot different.
So don't even try to paint a picture where all unions are evil and all employers are sweet as bunnies, cause it only makes you look stupid.


(in character again).

I get it - some unions are overly militant and can cause problems. But some bosses are absolute bastards, and without a larger organization to defend union rights - one that is entirely indepentent and autonomous, and one that does not live in fear of the government shutting it down or overruling it - is the only way to ensure that worker's rights are defended as they should be - the workers are the backbone of society and deserve every protection they can get.

Me deluded? Stupid? Why good Sir/Madaam, I do believe that you have been forced to play your cards. I understand that you have nothing considerable to contribute other than such remarks, and as such...*poof*

I pretty much think that's how it goes now anyways isn't it? I mean, I actually work in the real world, and for a non union company at that. So alot of this is extremely baseless. I can wholeheartedly tell you that I am not "at the mercy of my employers".

I'm not sure which company you work for, but for many people, even a majority you could say, the luxury of not being at the mercy of your employees, even without a trade union, is non-existant. That is why trades unions are necessary not just for them, but for everyone.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Me deluded? Stupid? Why good Sir/Madaam, I do believe that you have been forced to play your cards. I understand that you have nothing considerable to contribute other than such remarks, and as such...*poof*

My partner tells me that I should be more restrained, and sometimes she has a point. But she also tells me that supercilious comments are usually a sign of someone who has nothing better to say.

This won't come to the floor (I am pretty confident in saying) simply because the repeal is entirely based on the idea that several other resolutions make this one redundant, rather than this resolution is evil or bad in someway.

And given that no less than three resolutions protect gay marriage, I am not convinced the body of the UN would consider this worth repealing on the grounds of duplication.

Now - if you can make some arguements that this resolution is dangerous, not just that it duplicates other resolutions (which it doesn't), then I might consider it worth debating with you some more. As it is - I have better things to do with my time than debate something that will die within the week.

Even as a representative of probably one of the most vehemently pro business nations, even I have to say no. This resolution is probably the only real resolution that it preventing serious exploitation of cheap labour; and is, in my mind, utterly necessary if we are to ever bring about our desire of free trade whithin the UN.

Even as a representative of probably one of the most vehemently pro business nations, even I have to say no. This resolution is probably the only real resolution that it preventing serious exploitation of cheap labour; and is, in my mind, utterly necessary if we are to ever bring about our desire of free trade whithin the UN.
*jaw hits floor*

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones III, KCRC LOG, is full of surprises. I concur with his analysis.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Why?

Different nations, different situations, different requirements...

For one example, as believers in democracy, the government of St Edmund would like to be able to insist that all unions existing within our land possess democratic constitutions.. but this resolution says that governments can make no rules about unions' constitutions.

Even as a representative of probably one of the most vehemently pro business nations, even I have to say no. This resolution is probably the only real resolution that it preventing serious exploitation of cheap labour; and is, in my mind, utterly necessary if we are to ever bring about our desire of free trade whithin the UN.

Well said, Sir Cyril.

Might I inquire if you been partaking of intoxicating substances?

International labour unions give valuable suppoprt to workers in developing natons who have little experience in organising themselves in defense of their interests. Without unionisation, multinational corporations, their shady sub-contractors and small businesses alike would be free to hyper-exploit these workers.

The resolution should be retained, and an improved version proposed at some time in the near future.

I'm going to have to jump in and agree. Smelly evil beastly nasty horrid don't like you go 'way capito scumbag that I am, I've always regarded this resolution as very necessary. It's not rendered redundant by the resolutions you mention; further, there are one or two of those I wouldn't mind repealing, so it would be disingenuous of me to support a repeal based on their existence. Now let's all go hold hands and make daisy chain headsets and have wild orgies.

i am going to start doing this, but maybe hack should put it in as a rule for repeals to post the resolution in question as well.

The Rights of Labor Unions



A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free Soviets

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.

Votes For: 10158

Votes Against: 8228

Implemented: Mon Nov 24 2003

1) i dont see how the points in the other resolutions actually cover this. those are the rights and protections of individuals
2) the only point that seems to be missing to me is the protection of those workers that do not wish to join the union, both from the union, and from possible employers. the only point i agree on with the argument so far is unions forcing a 'union workers only' policy on sites. other than this, we have no problem with this resolution, and we do have a problem with the inadequacies of the argument for repeal

Different nations, different situations, different requirements...

For one example, as believers in democracy, the government of St Edmund would like to be able to insist that all unions existing within our land possess democratic constitutions.. but this resolution says that governments can make no rules about unions' constitutions.

But who gets to define exactly what a democratic constitution is? One that everyone votes on or one that everyone agrees on?

And if the government get to define the way a union is run, what is to stop the government interfering in it? Or redefining it should the union prove to be not a pro government body and start causing problems?

The reason unions have to remain independent and autonomous is to protect the rights of those who need protecting.

OK, I was hoping to see a draft before jumping in, but here are my two huge indivisible stones (that's Fonzoland's currency, for the less informed).

I believe in the usefulness of unions, in the protection of unions, in the independence of unions. This resolution is useful and well written, but suffers from some flaws. Examples are:

- Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions. I do NOT want an army union in Fonzoland, for obvious reasons.

- Ignores the contradiction of having the government appoint an 'unbiased mediator' when there is a public servants strike.

- Clause 6 and 7 are circular and contradictory. If I make a new law, is it protected by 6 or illegal due to 7?

- As mentioned before, does not give non-unionized workers protection against pro-union discrimination.

In short, I could be persuaded into supporting a repeal & resubmit movement with the right goals. Clearly the intentions of the author are not compatible with mine, therefore I formally state my position against this repeal.

- Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions. I do NOT want an army union in Fonzoland, for obvious reasons.


I can see that, but that one example is not reason enough to repeal the whole resolution. It does far more good than harm.


- Ignores the contradiction of having the government appoint an 'unbiased mediator' when there is a public servants strike.


Yet governments appoint judges, who are unbiased in making decisions, even when they include government members on trial.

The unbiased mediator does not have to work for the government - they just have to be appointed by them.


- Clause 6 and 7 are circular and contradictory. If I make a new law, is it protected by 6 or illegal due to 7?


I would argue that no - they are not contradictory. If you set out to make a law that violates any other clause, it is forbidden. But if you set out a law that says "you can't make kids work down mines", then it is not forbidden.


- As mentioned before, does not give non-unionized workers protection against pro-union discrimination.


I suppose. But again - more good than harm.


In short, I could be persuaded into supporting a repeal & resubmit movement with the right goals. Clearly the intentions of the author are not compatible with mine, therefore I formally state my position against this repeal.

Go you. And sorry for arguing with some of your points, but hey - it's what I do best. (That and throw the boomerang pretty well, anyway)

Yet governments appoint judges, who are unbiased in making decisions, even when they include government members on trial.

The unbiased mediator does not have to work for the government - they just have to be appointed by them.

The government appoints a judge for the job, usually before knowing which cases he will take, and usually losing the right to fire him. It is a whole different matter if the government were to appoint a judge specifically to trial a case against the prime minister. Since this is the NS world I will not mention a place called Italy.

I would argue that no - they are not contradictory. If you set out to make a law that violates any other clause, it is forbidden. But if you set out a law that says "you can't make kids work down mines", then it is not forbidden.

Yes, but suppose a country has a law regulating the rights and duties of associations. Say, "there cannot be gender discrimination when appointing a worker for any position" (including the election/selection of union leaders). Is this
a) In direct contradiction with clause 4, therefore unenforceable by clause 7?
b) Protected by clause 6?
The answer, if there is one, is ambiguous at best.

Go you. And sorry for arguing with some of your points, but hey - it's what I do best. (That and throw the boomerang pretty well, anyway)

No need to apologise, I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy debate. ;) For the record, and as you might have noticed, I would agree with you in the "more good than harm" thingie, unless there was a replacement ready to go.

The government appoints a judge for the job, usually before knowing which cases he will take, and usually losing the right to fire him. It is a whole different matter if the government were to appoint a judge specifically to trial a case against the prime minister. Since this is the NS world I will not mention a place called Italy.


While I accept the premise, the unions can always cry foul if the negotiator is obviously biased in some way (As can the government), and under the terms of the resolution that negotiated would have to be replaced.

I really don't see this as a serious problem, but maybe I am missing something stunningly obvious (smirk)


Yes, but suppose a country has a law regulating the rights and duties of associations. Say, "there cannot be gender discrimination when appointing a worker for any position" (including the election/selection of union leaders). Is this
a) In direct contradiction with clause 4, therefore unenforceable by clause 7?
b) Protected by clause 6?
The answer, if there is one, is ambiguous at best.


Ah. I think I can work out an answer, but it's 2am down my way, and my brain isn't working. I will give it another shot tomorrow :}


No need to apologise, I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy debate. ;) For the record, and as you might have noticed, I would agree with you in the "more good than harm" thingie, unless there was a replacement ready to go.

I have ethical issues repealing things to replace them - my main one being that there is no actual way to ensure it will get replaced, and having a 90% strength shield now is better than removing it on the basis a 100% one will come along later.

While I accept the premise, the unions can always cry foul if the negotiator is obviously biased in some way (As can the government), and under the terms of the resolution that negotiated would have to be replaced.

I really don't see this as a serious problem, but maybe I am missing something stunningly obvious (smirk)

Yes, I agree it is not a serious problem. Since the mediator is not given any powers, even if he was biased, he wouldn't be able to dictate the terms of the agreement. He is effectively a puppet, as the union would always have the right to continue the strike. Still, I see the clause as poorly designed.

Ah. I think I can work out an answer, but it's 2am down my way, and my brain isn't working. I will give it another shot tomorrow :}

Good, we are in the same time-zone. ;) I guess I am a night-owl...

I have ethical issues repealing things to replace them - my main one being that there is no actual way to ensure it will get replaced, and having a 90% strength shield now is better than removing it on the basis a 100% one will come along later.

You might be right on that. And there would be a lot more problematic resolutions to attack first.

But who gets to define exactly what a democratic constitution is? One that everyone votes on or one that everyone agrees on?

The government of St Edmund is currently defined by the UN as allowing its people a 'Very Good' level of political freedom: Until a couple of days ago that rating was actually 'Superb', and it seems to be a change in UN regulations rather than in our own internal legislation which has caused that change... I would suggest that this indicates a reasonable understanding of what is democratic, & sympathy with those principles, on the part of this government...

And if the government get to define the way a union is run, what is to stop the government interfering in it? Or redefining it should the union prove to be not a pro government body and start causing problems?

How about the government's principles?

The reason unions have to remain independent and autonomous is to protect the rights of those who need protecting.

As far as I can see this resolution only keeps [or tries to keep] unions independent of the governments, and does nothing to keep them independent either of specific political parties or of organised crime...

----------------------------

[OOC: My earlier remark unfortunately had to be cut short because the library where I was using a computer was about to close: What I would also have said, had there been enough time, was that I can see that governments other than St Edmund's might also wish to impose "appropriate" rules on unions within their territories, too, and that as the UN not only does not but can not set any limits on how member-nations organise their governments it seems to me that it's rather strange for it to set limits on how [or even if] those governments can set limits on any kinds of organisations - such as unions - within their nations. Consider this a 'NatSov'-based protest...

Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions. I do NOT want an army union in Fonzoland, for obvious reasons.

The government of St Edmund doesn't want to see unions being organised in our armed forces, either, but we don't interpret this resolution as requiring us to allow the foundation of any such bodies: Given that it doesn't actually define the term 'worker', and that [within the limits of its other clauses] it requires unions to follow the law of the land, we have passed a law defining 'worker' as meaning 'civilian in paid employment' for the purposes of all employment-related legislation...

(OOC: Considering that the resolution's author uses the term "Soviet" in their national name, and that [RW] Soviet rhetoric often referred to 'workers' & 'soldiers' [and also, for that matter, 'peasants', 'intellectuals' & 'students'] as comprising separate groups, I consider such a distinction perfectly justifiable... ;-)

Clause 6 and 7 are circular and contradictory. If I make a new law, is it protected by 6 or illegal due to 7?

I agree about finding this contradictory.

OOC: As an aside, Free Soviets is an anarchy run by an ardent opponent of state socialism. I think he uses the term with little regard for its RW baggage.

Oh, and I see no contradiction in clauses 6 and 7. They follow on quite logically.

The government of St Edmund is currently defined by the UN as allowing its people a 'Very Good' level of political freedom: Until a couple of days ago that rating was actually 'Superb', and it seems to be a change in UN regulations rather than in our own internal legislation which has caused that change... I would suggest that this indicates a reasonable understanding of what is democratic, & sympathy with those principles, on the part of this government...


And the people of my nation would say they are in a democracy as well. But I am the SOLE RULER of my nation - my word is absolute law. They elect me, and can vote to remove me, but until that happens, I have absolute power.

So - is your nation more democratic than mine? Or are both nations shining becons of democracy?

And given the vast range of nations who would call themselves democracies, can you now understand why I would have a problem with requiring a union to follow a certain form of democracy, that might not be in the best interests of the workers, instead being in the best interests of the management or the government?


How about the government's principles?


Principles are generally held right up until something more important comes up. Government principles more so. (No offence to you or anyone else in your government, but if you can find me a government that sticks to its principles absolutely and entirely, and never changes them to meet the demands of a situation, then I will be impressed)


As far as I can see this resolution only keeps [or tries to keep] unions independent of the governments, and does nothing to keep them independent either of specific political parties or of organised crime...


Swings and roundabouts. Of course - if organized crime is a crime, then the union can not (in theory) be involved in it because they have to obey the general laws of the land.



[OOC: My earlier remark unfortunately had to be cut short because the library where I was using a computer was about to close: What I would also have said, had there been enough time, was that I can see that governments other than St Edmund's might also wish to impose "appropriate" rules on unions within their territories, too, and that as the UN not only does not but can not set any limits on how member-nations organise their governments it seems to me that it's rather strange for it to set limits on how [or even if] those governments can set limits on any kinds of organisations - such as unions - within their nations. Consider this a 'NatSov'-based protest...

Because otherwise there would be no point in having the unions - if you are going to defend workers rights, and individual rights, generally you are going to have to defend them against government interference.

i am going to start doing this, but maybe hack should put it in as a rule for repeals to post the resolution in question as well.

*rolls eyes*

We don't have that rule for proposals. It's an etiquette issue, not a legality issue.

O.K. I realize I'm pulling this topic out of the "graveyard", but if we could put aside some of the problems you seemed to have a few months ago with this repeal, we might get something done. I am strongly against resolution #38, and I'm willing to take charge of this repeal, and propose it when the time is right. If you support me, I'll write a new proposal, and ask for your suggestions.

-Kingdom of Caucasia Island