NationStates Jolt Archive

Our sincerest apologies if there exists an official topic over this queued proposal, but a search resulted in no correct matches:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #38


Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) 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 the abolition of all national labor unions would be extremely disastrous to the local economic atmosphere.

NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", has serious flaws for the following reasons:

1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

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 didn't see one either, but I'll gladly merge them if Leg-Ends turns one up.

I don't recall seeing so many queued proposals, ever. Interesting burst of UN activity, that.

We had a few occasions over the summer where it was like this - but we were backlogging 3 proposals almost consistently then. Must be due to Winter break (just as the last one was due to Summer break).

Anyways - here's the resolution we're repealing:

Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong

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.

Implemented: Mon Nov 24 2003

I'll give my analysis of the repeal in a moment

I appreciate the sentiment of the honourable delegate's proposal, but I'm afraid I oppose it, as I view it as going too far in its proposed nature.

1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

Agreed.

2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

Could you specify further please?

3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers

Could you cite the relevant passage of the resolution and furthermore, how would you propose solving this alleged problem without undue interference in union affairs?

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

I would disagree these are outside the law. In the case of wildcat strikes, because sometimes these can be necessary if no progress is being made in negotiations. In the case of secondary picketing, on the grounds that workers have a right to show solidarity with one another and decide whether or not to strike. With regards to "union action outside the law", could you specify what this means?

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 am deeply concerned that the lack of a follow-up resolution will lead to terrible blows being wrought against union and worker rights, in contradiction of your preambles. I cannot see how this repeal will help protect workers, nor solve any legitimate union-related issues, in this regard.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I would like to thank Leg-ends for bringing these arguments to the table. It will help in the drafting of a more solid, fair replacement.

Description: UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Meh

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

Would've used "RECOGNIZING" but whatever

NOTES that the abolition of all national labor unions would be extremely disastrous to the local economic atmosphere.

Bloody tense....

Anyway - I think it would be more dangerous to the political atmosphere instead of the economical one (the economical one would only be a disaster as a repricusion of the political disaster).

NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", has serious flaws for the following reasons:

Let's hear them

1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

....Not entirely positive if this is true

2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

Nor does it prevent nations from implementing laws to deal with this issue - so implement it that way in your own nation (since you seem to be attempting to repeal it in the name of NatSov)

3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers

Again, this is something it doesn't prevent from being dealt with by national or more local laws. Again, implement it that way in your own nation, it's not a logical reason to repeal this resolution.

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

How?

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

Automatic best case of abstaination from me, but I think I'll actually be voting against

REPEALS Resolution #38 "The Right of Labor Unions"

Like hell you will.

Like hell you will.
I wouldn't like to see this one repealed either, personally. However, as Sheknu pointed out earlier, if the repeal succeeds it will clear the way for a better replacement. The same goes for "The 40 Hour Workweek". I'm not going to repeal it, but if someone else does a strong replacement can be written and submitted rather quickly.

OCC: I come from an area that at one time was heavily unionized and industrialized, and I do believe in the rights to unionize. however I do think unions need to change with the times. It is no longer the 20's and 30's.

IC:

The Palentine UN Office supports the repeal in hopes that something better will be drafted in its place. Especially a clause on the use of union dues for political purposes. Each member should have the rights to approve or disapprove the way the Union uses the money to influence Political Elections. Furthermore if a member disapproves of the canidate that is supported by the union, he should have the right to tell his union not to use a portion of his dues for campain contributions. I wish Leg-ends the best of luck and fully give my support to this repeal.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"In God we Trust, all other must pay Cash!"

i would be against this purely because of point 4, but Forgottenlands has raised an interesting point, that should be concidered for some of the other resolutions. just because the resolution doesnt mention it, doesnt mean that individual nations cant legislated about the issue. laws preventing bullying by unions on non-union workers could be easily legislated in your own parliament. again with the union elections. as for point one, even unions are conciderate in regaurds to certain things. usually hospital workers on strike leave skelton staff, and i think it would be highly unlikly that military personel would go on strike during a war. there are certain laws that apply to and within the military that would not be affected by unionism

as for point one, even unions are conciderate in regaurds to certain things. usually hospital workers on strike leave skelton staffNot always: the air traffic controller's strike in the 80's. Or, hell, the New York public transit strike a few weeks ago that was deemed to be illegal.

i think it would be highly unlikly that military personel would go on strike during a warHeh heh heh... unionizing militaries is just silly.

Not always: the air traffic controller's strike in the 80's. Or, hell, the New York public transit strike a few weeks ago that was deemed to be illegal.

okay, there is the odd exception. did the ATCs give fair warning of the strike? also, how was the NYPT strike deemed illegal?

okay, there is the odd exception. did the ATCs give fair warning of the strike? also, how was the NYPT strike deemed illegal?

Essential service probably. Essential services can't go on strike (though they can take other forms of action - such as Work to Rule, etc). However, (for Hack), no matter what sort of system you put in place, even if the unions aren't allowed to strike doesn't mean they won't - the fact that illegal strikes do take place proves that very fact.

okay, there is the odd exception. did the ATCs give fair warning of the strike?Well, I was a wee lad when it happened, but as I recall they gave warning and were told not to. They went on strike and were told to stop or else. They stayed on strike and Reagan fired them all.

also, how was the NYPT strike deemed illegal?EDIT: Nope, just plain illegal.

However, without bothering to c/p, here's some info:

ATC strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_controllers%27_strike_of_1981)
NYT Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_strike)

that ATC one seems bizare. if they gave warning, it would at least be able to ensure all planes were grounded before the strike could actually take place. then again, common sense has never been one of the american government's strong points. as for the NYT one, the section of that Taylor Law thing that prevents them from striking is a load of bull, IMHO. here in au, there has been know of public transport strikes. to me, in the case of 'essential services', as long as they give fair warning, and in the case of such things as hospitals, allow and maintain a skeleton staff. maybe the ATC strike could have done that, for emergency transport only, but to me, what Reagan did was wrong.

1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.


But does prevent the government from turning every state run service in to a virtual prison camp for its workers. If the police, the fire, the medical services couldn't strike, they would be entirely at the mercy of the government. If the train and bus staff couldn't strike, they would also be at the mercy of the government.

Under various resolutions the employers of people are required to protect the safety and so forth of their workers. But no where does it say they have to protect the welfare of them. So imagine you are a police officer, and suddenly all your benifits, healthcare and so forth are dropped, your hours are doubled (but still inside the 40 hour work week law) and your pay is halved. But because you are not permitted to be in a union, you have no legal right to object to any of this.

What do you do?


2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.


I accept that, but at the same time it prevents companies from banning anyone who IS in a union from working for them. Which is also something that needs to be protected, otherwise what the hell is the point of having unions?


3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers


And it prevents companies from having puppet leaders appointed who will cave at every opportunity. It prevents governments from riding roughshod over the very workers you are apparently trying to protect by stripping all their rights away.


4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing


So?


and Union action outside of the rule of law


Bollocks. That is a flat out lie - the resolution ITSELF says that union can not make laws that go contrary to the rule of law in the nation. If you are going to make things up, at least have the decency to do it well :}

that ATC one seems bizare. if they gave warning, it would at least be able to ensure all planes were grounded before the strike could actually take place.Except that all planes being grounded cripples the nation. Also, I'm not sure how much warning was given by PATCO.

as for the NYT one, the section of that Taylor Law thing that prevents them from striking is a load of bull, IMHOIt's a matter of essential services and causing harm to the city in general. Pay attention to the dates on this strike. Trying to close down the city a few days before Christmas smacks of ulterior motives. Hell, I've been without a contract for over a year, and there's still no talk of striking, and I pay a damn sight more than 1% of my health care costs (as in, 50%).

Also, the Taylor Law is more than just a near-total prohibition of striking. It's the law that allows public employees to unionize in the first place.

to me, in the case of 'essential services', as long as they give fair warning, and in the case of such things as hospitals, allow and maintain a skeleton staff.So what's a "skeleton staff" of police officers and fire fighters? How does having a "skeleton staff" of transit workers allieviate quintupling (or more) the number of cars on the roads? And "fair warning" is nonsense. Are people not going to have fires, get mugged, or need hospital care as long as they have 'fair warning'? "Gee, ya know, I was planning on getting mugged this weekend, but I'll wait until the cops are back off strike."

maybe the ATC strike could have done that, for emergency transport only, but to me, what Reagan did was wrong.Check out this summary (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm) which gives considerably more detail than the Wiki article. Like many things in life, it's not a black/white issue, regardless of which side you're on.

Except that all planes being grounded cripples the nation. Also, I'm not sure how much warning was given by PATCO.

It's a matter of essential services and causing harm to the city in general. Pay attention to the dates on this strike. Trying to close down the city a few days before Christmas smacks of ulterior motives. Hell, I've been without a contract for over a year, and there's still no talk of striking, and I pay a damn sight more than 1% of my health care costs (as in, 50%).

Also, the Taylor Law is more than just a near-total prohibition of striking. It's the law that allows public employees to unionize in the first place.

So what's a "skeleton staff" of police officers and fire fighters? How does having a "skeleton staff" of transit workers allieviate quintupling (or more) the number of cars on the roads? And "fair warning" is nonsense. Are people not going to have fires, get mugged, or need hospital care as long as they have 'fair warning'? "Gee, ya know, I was planning on getting mugged this weekend, but I'll wait until the cops are back off strike."

Check out this summary (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm) which gives considerably more detail than the Wiki article. Like many things in life, it's not a black/white issue, regardless of which side you're on.
i see the part about the no-strike clause in their contracts.... there needs to be a balance, and common-sense used i admit. the timing of the NYT one was off, but then again, how long did it take to get to that point. if a union is going to strike, they are going to strike when they can get the most notice, otherwise there is little point to it. their aim, in the case of these services, is not for you to get mad at them, but to put pressure on those higher up.

The government of St Edmund will support this repeal. We don't object to the concept of trade unions on principle, as long as it's clearly understood that they can be banned in certain fields of employment (most specifically the armed forces), but in our opinion the original resolution's clause banning governments from setting any rules whatsoever about unions' constitutions has got to go...

...but in our opinion the original resolution's clause banning governments from setting any rules whatsoever about unions' constitutions has got to go...
can you please expand upon this further? i mean, it has already been stated that any actions, and i assume that goes to documental wording, done by a union has to be within the law, and any laws pertaining to what a body can and can not have in its constitution would not just affect labour unions, thus would be perfectly legal under this resolution.

also, just a thought, you wouldnt be able to stop a union in the military reguardless if it is legal or not. they form a union, with enough high ranking officials, and it wont be a strike it would be a coup de tat

There are problems in the original resolution, but I'd rather that it were too encompassing than too narrow.
If this passes, a replacement is most definately required. Assuming free trade, a balance is struck between the most money a union can get from an employer without the employer outsourcing abroad, and thus creates the optimal (not neccessarily the highest) wage in each nation. The problem comes with un-outsourceable industries (such as railways), where the workers get too greedy, and with essential public services such as the police; and this does need to be dealt with.

LAE officials are surprised by this repeal:

Repeal:
NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", has serious flaws for the following reasons:
4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law


#38:
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.

so do i win any awards for being the first nation to have repeal attempts on two different UN resolutions i proposed?

edit: i just realized that leg-ends was also behind the attempted repeal of the 40 hour workweek. it's like having my very own arch-nemesis.

LAE officials are surprised by this repeal:

Repeal:
NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", has serious flaws for the following reasons:
4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law


#38:
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.


May i ask a consideration about this point of this proposal, thanks
Does this resolution notes that #38 does something it doesn't?

http://www.nationstates.net/page=help

http://www.nationstates.net/page=help

I don't request anything, just asked a question:)

But why not ask it to people who can actually give you an answer?

... to let you know that the Anticapitalist Alliance will mobilise all possible resources to defeat this vexatious repeal and horrific attack on workers throughout the nationstates world.

The right of workers to organise and strike to protect terms and conditions shall be defended.

Strike action, the withdrawal of labour is the most powerful weapon and at the same time the most desperate act of the working class. It is the only counterbalance that the proletariat worldwide can use to effectively hold back attacks on pay and conditions. It is never used without severe reflection and a careful evaluation of the objective situation, it would be a severely retrograde step to remove this pillar of support for workers who find themselves resident in countries that already have regressive industrial relations climates and less than enviable working conditions.

Socialist Greetings,

Jan Palach
- Current Delegate of the Anticapitalist Alliance

... to let you know that the Anticapitalist Alliance will mobilise all possible resources to defeat this vexatious repeal and horrific attack on workers throughout the nationstates world.

The right of workers to organise and strike to protect terms and conditions shall be defended.

Strike action, the withdrawal of labour is the most powerful weapon and at the same time the most desperate act of the working class. It is the only counterbalance that the proletariat worldwide can use to effectively hold back attacks on pay and conditions. It is never used without severe reflection and a careful evaluation of the objective situation, it would be a severely retrograde step to remove this pillar of support for workers who find themselves resident in countries that already have regressive industrial relations climates and less than enviable working conditions.

Socialist Greetings,

Jan Palach
- Current Delegate of the Anticapitalist Alliance

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero would like to let know jan Palach, that there are some Unions and strikes in LAE, but that even the elected leaders of LAE's Unions have absolutly nothing against capitalism, should it be fair, regulated and should it comes with social policies in order to decrease significantly its side effects.

so do i win any awards for being the first nation to have repeal attempts on two different UN resolutions i proposed?

edit: i just realized that leg-ends was also behind the attempted repeal of the 40 hour workweek. it's like having my very own arch-nemesis.
I don't know if there are any awards involved, but it does seem that you are the first, at least as far as I can tell from looking through NSwiki. Congratulations!

For reference, here is the text of "The Rights of Labor Unions".
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.
It seems that LAE is right. This:
4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law
is a false statement. "The Rights of Labor Unions" states that:
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.

Strike action
is never used without severe reflection and a careful evaluation of the objective situation


(OOC) And if anybody believes that then I have some very nice swampland for sale...

can you please expand upon this further? i mean, it has already been stated that any actions, and i assume that goes to documental wording, done by a union has to be within the law, and any laws pertaining to what a body can and can not have in its constitution would not just affect labour unions, thus would be perfectly legal under this resolution.

H'mm. I do see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure what other sorts of organisations I could place under the same laws as unions in order to get around clause 4... Charitable volunteer groups, maybe? I'll have to think about this...

also, just a thought, you wouldnt be able to stop a union in the military reguardless if it is legal or not. they form a union, with enough high ranking officials, and it wont be a strike it would be a coup de tat

If it's illegal then the government of St Edmund can stop it, by arresting the organisers before they get to the stage of starting a coup... and it would be illegal, because (OOC:as I've already mentioned in an earlier thread about this topic) there's a fairly wide loophole in the resolution: It doesn't actually define the term "workers" that's used in its description's clause #1...

Given that as this resolution requires national governments to permit the unionisation of "workers" within their national territories, but does not actually define the latter term, it is clearly necessary for the national governments to define it in their own laws.
(OOC: Given that the resolution was proposed by a nation with 'Soviets' in its name, it seemed to me that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the resolution to interpret the term "workers" in the context of RW Marxist rhetoric, which has commonly referred to "workers" and "soldiers" -- and "peasants", "students" and "intellectuals" too, for that matter -- as constituting separate groups... and I still think that that's appropriate, even though I've since been told that the resolution's author is actually more of an anarchist than a Marxist...)
The government of St Edmund has consequently passed a law defining the term "workers" as meaning "civilians in paid employment" for the purposes of all employment-related legislation.

It seems that LAE is right. This is a false statement.

hmm, it seems to me that the last time the representative from leg-ends attempted to repeal one of our resolutions they also relied on falsehoods. it's like some sort of a pattern.

(full reply to the repeal's accusations in the works)

H'mm. I do see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure what other sorts of organisations I could place under the same laws as unions in order to get around clause 4... Charitable volunteer groups, maybe? I'll have to think about this...



If it's illegal then the government of St Edmund can stop it, by arresting the organisers before they get to the stage of starting a coup... and it would be illegal, because (OOC:as I've already mentioned in an earlier thread about this topic) there's a fairly wide loophole in the resolution: It doesn't actually define the term "workers" that's used in its description's clause #1...

Given that as this resolution requires national governments to permit the unionisation of "workers" within their national territories, but does not actually define the latter term, it is clearly necessary for the national governments to define it in their own laws.
(OOC: Given that the resolution was proposed by a nation with 'Soviets' in its name, it seemed to me that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the resolution to interpret the term "workers" in the context of RW Marxist rhetoric, which has commonly referred to "workers" and "soldiers" -- and "peasants", "students" and "intellectuals" too, for that matter -- as constituting separate groups... and I still think that that's appropriate, even though I've since been told that the resolution's author is actually more of an anarchist than a Marxist...)
The government of St Edmund has consequently passed a law defining the term "workers" as meaning "civilians in paid employment" for the purposes of all employment-related legislation.
well, there we go, a way to exclude military from being classed as workers. sort of one part down. also, with the fault LAE picked out, that makes two faults. kinda makes me wonder how this made it through the drafting process and to quarum...

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.

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.

I posted this in a previous thread: Suppose a country has a law stating that, in any organisation, women have equal rights to men. A union decides to elect only male leaders. Then,

a) Clause 4 states that the union is free from interference when making their rules and selecting their representatives, so clause 7 makes said law unenforceable.
b) Clause 6 forces the union to respect said law, and allow women to run for election.

Is anyone else disturbed by the circularity?

I posted this in a previous thread: Suppose a country has a law stating that, in any organisation, women have equal rights to men. A union decides to elect only male leaders. Then,

a) Clause 4 states that the union is free from interference when making their rules and selecting their representatives, so clause 7 makes said law unenforceable.
b) Clause 6 forces the union to respect said law, and allow women to run for election.

Is anyone else disturbed by the circularity?
i think the idea behind clause 6 and 7 is that whilst unions have to respect laws already in place, a government cant make new ones impeading the union's rights. which brings up a question for me: what about UN resolutions? the scenario you pointed out could go against some UN resolutions too. this kinda interferes with the process of clause 4, but everybody has to respect UN resolutions. what would the ruling be here?

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

I've just had a thought about this provision in the original text. If a union is in an international federation, then does the possibility exist that they could claim exemption from national law by saying that their parent union-organisation is based elsewhere?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I've just had a thought about this provision in the original text. If a union is in an international federation, then does the possibility exist that they could claim exemption from national law by saying that their parent union-organisation is based elsewhere?

Highly doubtful. No provision for such immunity is made; I don't think that would ever stand up in a court of law.

You're probably right, thanks for the reply.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Res Publica Licens of Compadria to the U.N.

OOC: 600 posts, count em baby!

AOOC: For those wondering what happened to my nation name, I changed it for variety reasons, following an officially ratified referendum on the issue in Compadria.

OOC: 600 posts, count em baby!

OOC: Errr, OK, if you insist...

Compadria
Deadly

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 599

Must have been that day you posted a curse instead of a blessing...

I posted this in a previous thread: Suppose a country has a law stating that, in any organisation, women have equal rights to men. A union decides to elect only male leaders. Then,

a) Clause 4 states that the union is free from interference when making their rules and selecting their representatives, so clause 7 makes said law unenforceable.
b) Clause 6 forces the union to respect said law, and allow women to run for election.

Is anyone else disturbed by the circularity?

Yes.

A ghost page... curious...

OOC: Errr, OK, if you insist...



Must have been that day you posted a curse instead of a blessing...

Yes, they have an unfortunate habit of rebounding if you're not careful.

Still, (take 2) Count 'em baby!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Yes, they have an unfortunate habit of rebounding if you're not careful.

Still, (take 2) Count 'em baby!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: Okay, but this might take a while. I have difficulty with numbers beyond ten. I'll have to take off my shoes, but then I don't know what I'm going to do for the numbers after 20.

OOC: Okay, but this might take a while. I have difficulty with numbers beyond ten. I'll have to take off my shoes, but then I don't know what I'm going to do for the numbers after 20.

Try hairs, that sometimes works.

workers should have no rights unless its a high level job, for the usual low income workers either take the job or leave it, theres always someone else willign to do it..

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero would like to let know jan Palach, that there are some Unions and strikes in LAE, but that even the elected leaders of LAE's Unions have absolutly nothing against capitalism, should it be fair, regulated and should it comes with social policies in order to decrease significantly its side effects.

Then the union leaders have clearly become divorced from their brethren or spent far too much time at the crack pipe we might humbly suggest.

The interests of labour and the ruling classes are inextricably opposed. The contradiction inherent, there is no such thing as fair capitalism.

Every profit requires a loss. Eventually when you carry through the calculations, the objective result is a minus in the human condition column perhaps not in your own country, probably a somewhat less harsh result among your domestic populace but the system of imperialism / neoconservatism that capitalism uses to dominate the planet ensures that need becomes something that can only be resourced at a profit. The only way to make it commercial is to make sure that at least part of this need goes unsatisfied.

Hence poverty, death, undevelopment and starvation are not byproducts but requirements of this lauded system.

The last comment regarding supposed economic freedom of workers to take or leave jobs is so asinine that it plumbs new depths for the NS main forums.

There's a reason I don't come here often and it never takes long to be reminded why.

I'll see you at the telegram machine.

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero would like to let know jan Palach, that there are some Unions and strikes in LAE, but that even the elected leaders of LAE's Unions have absolutly nothing against capitalism, should it be fair, regulated and should it comes with social policies in order to decrease significantly its side effects.

Then the union leaders have clearly become divorced from their brethren or spent far too much time at the crack pipe we might humbly suggest.

The interests of labour and the ruling classes are inextricably opposed. The contradiction inherent, there is no such thing as fair capitalism.

Every profit requires a loss. Eventually when you carry through the calculations, the objective result is a minus in the human condition column perhaps not in your own country, probably a somewhat less harsh result among your domestic populace but the system of imperialism / neoconservatism that capitalism uses to dominate the planet ensures that need becomes something that can only be resourced at a profit. The only way to make it commercial is to make sure that at least part of this need goes unsatisfied.

Hence poverty, death, undevelopment and starvation are not byproducts but requirements of this lauded system.

The last comment regarding supposed economic freedom of workers to take or leave jobs is so asinine that it plumbs new depths for the NS main forums.

There's a reason I don't come here often and it never takes long to be reminded why.

I'll see you at the telegram machine.

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero would like to let know jan Palach, that there are some Unions and strikes in LAE, but that even the elected leaders of LAE's Unions have absolutly nothing against capitalism, should it be fair, regulated and should it comes with social policies in order to decrease significantly its side effects.

That's not capitalism. That's socialism.

That's not capitalism. That's socialism.

You may say it's a mix between socialism and capitalism if you want, but this is what happen in Europe, US, Japan, Korea...
China, which is somehow more capitalist and less socialist than Europe and US is going more and more to mix this way also:)

*snip*

China, which is somehow more capitalist and less socialist than Europe and US is going more and more to mix this way also:)

China? More capitalist? This statement proves that you are clearly insane.

China? More capitalist? This statement proves that you are clearly insane.

Actually.....he's somewhat correct. SOME European states are indeed more socialist than China - China has a significantly less regulated economy than, say, Sweden.

China, while claiming to be Communist, is quite a bit right of the Marxist principles. While it does help its people, it doesn't centralize all the money like you had with the Soviets and allows private investment, etc.

Meant to say, "More capitalist than the US?"

That's not capitalism. That's socialism.

Incorrect. The distinction between capitalism and socialism is in ownership of capital, not in level of regulation or social intervention. His statement was in the direction of left-wing capitalism, welfare state, whatever, but not socialism.

The Cloud-Water Community formally states its opposition to this repeal. As revealed by other contributors to this debate, the assertions made in the repeal are mere fluff, fabrications and fallacies designed to cloak the real intentions of the authors.

I trust that my fellow delegates will see fit to consign this shameful document to the ranks of failed repeals where it belongs.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Meant to say, "More capitalist than the US?"

While his statement was grammatically poor, he actually didn't say that - and even when you read it, it takes a heck of a scewing of what he said to mess that up.

He said that the US is moving left, not that it's left of China. Check your glasses or read the sentences all the way through before you call someone crazy for something they didn't claim.

Question:

With 4 being proven as false, isn't that grounds from deletion for false arguments?

Question:

With 4 being proven as false, isn't that grounds from deletion for false arguments?

I would think so, yeah.

So, who wants to report it?

Not me; I wouldn't mind the original legislation to be repealed, even if only because I want to see it replaced with something that covers the concerns I have with the wording of the original..

There is absolutely no hurry on this. If it's still around in 10 days time, it can still be deleted then. So, could we make absolutely sure it's illegal before reporting it?

There is absolutely no hurry on this. If it's still around in 10 days time, it can still be deleted then. So, could we make absolutely sure it's illegal before reporting it?

That would be why I didn't report it, I know Hack's been glancing in so I was hoping he'd see it and comment.

I posted this in a previous thread: Suppose a country has a law stating that, in any organisation, women have equal rights to men. A union decides to elect only male leaders. Then,

a) Clause 4 states that the union is free from interference when making their rules and selecting their representatives, so clause 7 makes said law unenforceable.
b) Clause 6 forces the union to respect said law, and allow women to run for election.

Is anyone else disturbed by the circularity?

It's not exactly a circularity. It is a matter of balancing claims, just like with every legal document ever written. A law requiring sex and/or gender equality that applied equally to all organizations and groups (so that'd mean government and private, businesses, unions, church organizations, etc) would almost certainly not be found to be an instance of of the state infringing on a union's right to draw up their own rules. A law that said that unions would be subject to some special rules about how they organized themselves as regards sexual equality would almost certainly be a violation of clauses 4 and 7.

It's all about whether the intended or primary effect of a law is to restrict the rights of unions, or if some percieved restriction is minor and incidental.

It's not exactly a circularity. It is a matter of balancing claims, just like with every legal document ever written. A law requiring sex and/or gender equality that applied equally to all organizations and groups (so that'd mean government and private, businesses, unions, church organizations, etc) would almost certainly not be found to be an instance of of the state infringing on a union's right to draw up their own rules. A law that said that unions would be subject to some special rules about how they organized themselves as regards sexual equality would almost certainly be a violation of clauses 4 and 7.

It's all about whether the intended or primary effect of a law is to restrict the rights of unions, or if some percieved restriction is minor and incedental.

I am afraid that your interpretation is not the only possible one, since your last paragraph cannot be inferred from any clause in this resolution. Enforcing any sort of law to outlaw a specific set of union rules must be considered "interference." Therefore, any nation has the right to apply this law according to local jurisprudence.

I dare say most legal documents ever written do not contain blatant contradictions that need balancing.

Oh, btw, I don't intend to support a repeal.

Meant to say, "More capitalist than the US?"

China, which is somehow more capitalist and less socialist than Europe and US is going more and more to mix this way also:)

Ok, my sentences was a little bit provocative, lol;)

But china doesn't have the same social protection, consumer protection and business regulation than the US and Europe, it's normal as China began is some economic mutation later. And even, if the chinese states is the owner of many business and then as agains some communist economic tendencies, China is in many area a very capitalist nations. Regulation is slowly but surely coming in China, and the 2008 olympic games are one of the reasons about environment for example.

Ok, my sentences was a little bit provocative, lol;)

But china doesn't have the same social protection, consumer protection and business regulation than the US and Europe, it's normal as China began is some economic mutation later. And even, if the chinese states is the owner of many business and then as agains some communist economic tendencies, China is in many area a very capitalist nations. Regulation is slowly but surely coming in China, and the 2008 olympic games are one of the reasons about environment for example.

OOC: China is unique because they work with two parallel economic philosophies. One directed to international competition, another for domestic use. So what you said makes (parcial) sense.

Ok, my sentences was a little bit provocative, lol;)

But china doesn't have the same social protection, consumer protection and business regulation than the US and Europe, it's normal as China began is some economic mutation later. And even, if the chinese states is the owner of many business and then as agains some communist economic tendencies, China is in many area a very capitalist nations. Regulation is slowly but surely coming in China, and the 2008 olympic games are one of the reasons about environment for example.

Economically, they are freer than the US, but they are still much more socialist. They regulate everything in a different sense. Even more importantly, though, is how they set up their social policies (ie: their budget). That is a much more socialist position than the US. Socialism (as opposed to Marxism or communism) is defined by its taxation and social programs than its economic programs.

These are just semantic differences, but I view socialism as the pure economic policy term, while communism (while including socialist economics) implies in addition a certain political power structure.

I dare say most legal documents ever written do not contain blatant contradictions that need balancing.

"The Congress shall have power to...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

"Congress shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech"

can congress outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater?

This is why Cobdenia hasn't got a codified constitution...

"The Congress shall have power to...make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

"Congress shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech"

can congress outlaw yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Look:

a) I can't be bothered to discuss RL legislation, specially if it is an abridged quote making reference to "foregoing powers." I am also uninterested in that so called Congress, whichever country it belongs to.

b) I am actually in support of the proposal, with all its problems, unless someone shows me a very strong replacement.

c) Your resolution has a major ambiguity, which creates obvious loopholes, and can even boggle people try to honestly read its intent. You made the intent clear now, in your post, but what you say now is not in the law. Claiming that it is normal for a 3500 character resolution to include contradictions is just defeatist and wrong.

d)You could have solved it simply by including something of the style "laws that directly restrict the previous freedoms can not be enforced" and "unions must respect the laws that do not directly restrict the previous freedoms." Or whatever, this is mostly academic, so I can't be bothered to reread the resolution.

e) Item e) is false.

I am new to the game, and I know this. I am also not yet a UN member (looking over the various proposals, I am not sure that some of them are ones I would want to be FORCED to follow, even if they are ones I would freely choose to follow). If I were in the UN, however, my response would be this... while I personally place high value on the rights of workers and see a need for unionization (what most people seem to miss is that unions arose because owners, managers, etc. did not take care of their employees on their own so the employees were forced to protect themselves... thus, if unions are bad for business, the blame for them must be laid at the feet of those who were responsible for creating the situations that the employee felt they needed to protect themselves from and not at the feet of the employees), I would vote to repeal this resolution as it would seem to make many choices of the more authoritarian / totalitarian players to decide for themselves how they want to run their governments. Just as I would not want the tyranny of the majority to limit my choices that are internal (what if those who make choices I wouldn't like became the majority and managed to pass resolutions which would require me, as a UN member, to randomly execute citizens or to deny them education so as to limit their threat to those in power, etc.?) I don't think that it is right for a majority to impose their view of morals and ethincs on others. My solution would not be an either or solution, it would be from outside the box.

What if such proposals, instead of requiring compliance of all members, were instead used to make decisions on how following or not following them would affect the citizens, economy, morale, etc. of each nation's population and then cause benefit or harm to things like population levels (would people be trying to escape from or to nations based on their compliance, or lack thereof, with UN proposals), economy (would it make people or businesses more productive or less), corruption, environment, etc. Let discussions about the proposals focus on what the players think would happen as a result of following or not following certain aspects of them. Let member nations decide for themselves what parts (if any) of a passed proposal they will willingly follow (for instance, the resolution in question actually has several different ideas about unions which it is trying to address but some people might agree with some and not agree with others) (an analogy would be our own administration here in the US deciding on its own what parts of things like the Geneva Conventions it does and does not have to obey, or thinking that it can make an interpretation of what a seemingly obvious law or act means and, thus, what they do or don't have to do to be in compliance with it). On the basis of their choices, let other nations make decisions about how they will respond to such individual choices (like with trade, would your nation sanction others for not following them or would you boost trade to tie that nation more strongly to yours and encourage them to "come around").

Just some thoughts from someone who hasn't been here very long. Take them for what they are worth and if they are seen as the ramblings of a complete idiot then simply laugh at me as you read my post.

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist

For reference, here is the text of "The Rights of Labor Unions".

It seems that LAE is right. This:

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

is a false statement. "The Rights of Labor Unions" states that:

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.


Personally, if I see someone argue against something for reasons that don't exist in fact, I tend to dismiss them on the grounds that either [a] they don't understand the thing they're arguing against, or [b] they know their argument is weak but are willing to use illegitimate arguments in the hope of "hoodwinking" people who don't take the time to notice what they've done.

I oppose this repeal on these grounds. The original Resolution is self-limiting to prevent what this repeal calls "...Union action outside the law". Because of this provision in the original Resolution, I don't see that it does what the Repeal accuses it of doing.

IMO, there are no compelling true arguments against the original Resolution to overrule this point concerning the illegitimacy of the Repeal's argument.

What surprises me is that this has reached quorum and we could get stuck with an illegitimately proposed law.

--snip--
Well, it's gone to vote, so the mods can't delete it now. I think it's best to move on from the illegality or otherwise, and discuss if, substantively, we want this to pass. No one has yet been able to rebut point 1 of the repeal; there are certain sectors where strike action - not all industrial action, but specifically strike action - is completely out of the question. Is anyone going to try, or are we to assume the opponents of this repeal would rather we had doctors and soldiers striking than the thought that the proletariat might be shackled by us beastly capitos?

Just some thoughts from someone who hasn't been here very long. Take them for what they are worth and if they are seen as the ramblings of a complete idiot then simply laugh at me as you read my post.

Most of us don't laugh at anyone who puts as much thought into their posts as you obviously have, Falkeep.

There's a set of cards (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454487) you might get a grin from that nicely encapsulates what things do get laughed at. The Silly Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397276) thread is also educational.

I don't think what you propose would work, the way the game mechanism's set up at the moment. What happens is that the UN Gnomes just come in and make it so. If the UN voted to repeal gravity, the gnomes would (presumably) adjust the laws of physics.

--------------------------------
On Topic: Ardchoille opposes this repeal on the grounds that the labour movement has had to fight bitterly for every last little improvement in our working lives and there is no way we are going to give up a syllable of whatever minuscule advance we succeed in having recorded in national or international law.

However flawed some observers may consider existing legislation, it's there and it works.

*snip*

If the UN voted to repeal gravity, the gnomes would (presumably) adjust the laws of physics.

*snip*

If I remember correctly, Gruenberg once suggested (albeit jokingly, of course) submitting a proposal entitled "Repeal 'Laws of Physics.'" :D

If I remember correctly, Gruenberg once suggested (albeit jokingly, of course) submitting a proposal entitled "Repeal 'Laws of Physics.'" :D

Has someone coined the term "Divine Sovereignity" yet?

Has someone coined the term "Divine Sovereignity" yet?

If anyone has, it was probably the Black New World. ;)

If the UN voted to repeal gravity, the gnomes would (presumably) adjust the laws of physics.Mmm... that would be amusing.

So we just need someone to get a Resolution establishing the law of gravity (and make it legal somehow), and then we can Repeal it.

Gruen, the repeal says this about the military (and, by inference, I suppose, about doctors, nurses, firefighters and others in essential services):

(1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

In fact, the original (#38) does not mention the military, etc, by name. What #38 does say is this:

2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions ...

and this:

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.

So, while the existing legislation does not specify that the government can "limit the scope of actions etc etc", what it does make possible is (1) the existence of military and other unions, and (2) the ability on their part to engage in industrial actions.

"Industrial actions" paints with a very broad brush. Negotiations between a union and an employer are a form of industrial action; in fact, they're a very big part of union activity.

What is wrong with negotiations by their unions on behalf of essential-service personnel?

The unions might well agree to a no-strike clause, trading that for, say, free or subsidised housing post-service, guaranteed education benefits or retirement annuities.

The agreement or contract on specific industrial action could be registered under national law without contradicting or impairing #38's Clause 7.

Surely it would be better to sort this out round a table before it became necessary, instead of waiting until matters became so desperate that soldiers took to unauthorised forms of resolving disputes -- fragging, or mutiny, for example.

The unions and employers could agree on a standardised disputes procedure that would make it easy for a matter to be notified and dealt with before it became urgent.

An agreement could even specify what forms of industrial action were available to essential-service workers with an unredressed grievance. There are plenty of ways of, ah, gaining an employer's attention, without going on strike.

The simple act of going public with the problem is often extremely effective -- "Their lives are on the line, but they can't get (fill in desired condition)"; "Allowed to die, but not allowed to (fill in as before)"; these are not the kind of headlines governments find easy to ignore.

By speaking through a union official, rather than individually, essential services workers avoid the possibility of bullying, victimisation, etc, just as workers in other fields do.

Such people are required to work in conditions most of us would not accept, exercise skills few of us have, face risks most of us would run a mile from and do all this at irregular, punishing hours. Surely they should at least have the right to organise and act to secure improvements.

The existing resolution protects this; the repeal apparently seeks to withdraw it.

The original bill was well intentioned but like most bills in the UN that are well intentioned it has serious flaws. I applaud leg-ends for tackling the challenge of repealing this.
Fist things first not every worker wants to be in an union. However manufacturing plants ussually buy parts from other manufacturing plants and the process of plants supplying other plants continues until the final product is brought to the consumer. Under the original bill there is nothing stopping the unions from threatening strikes if the company deals with non union plants. This is unfair to the workers in the non union plant and unfair to the stock holders of the union company if they are unable to deal with a better supplier because the supplier is non union. Union groups are very loyal to other union groups.
The original bill doesn't include that the military can't be union. Does anything need to be said about that?
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.
The combination of those 2 items you might as well give the unions a crown.
Look at the merits of the bill not the title and do the right thing. Vote for this repeal.

I echo the arguments against repeal put forward by my friend from Ardchoille. This repeal is not only disingenuous and fraudulent, it is also dangerous and a massive step backwards for workers'- nay, human rights.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

No one has yet been able to rebut point 1 of the repeal; there are certain sectors where strike action - not all industrial action, but specifically strike action - is completely out of the question. Is anyone going to try, or are we to assume the opponents of this repeal would rather we had doctors and soldiers striking than the thought that the proletariat might be shackled by us beastly capitos?

This is where the loophole that the government of St Edmund found in the original resolution (and that I might already have mentioned before this) comes in useful: That law doesn't actually define the "workers" whose union rights have to be recognised... The government of St Edmund therefore defined "workers" as meaning "civilians in paid employment" for the purposes of all employment-related legislation, thus leaving our armed forces outside of that resolution's scope.

(OOC: This seemed especially appropriate given that that measure had actually been authored by a nation with 'Soviets' in its title, even though I've since been told that they are actually more anarchist than bolshevik in nature, given that RL Marxist rhetoric commonly refers to "workers" and "soldiers" -- and "peasants", "students" and "intellectuals" [which I suppose could be taken to count as "all graduates", and thus include the doctors] too, for that matter -- as separate groups...)

Economically, they are freer than the US, but they are still much more socialist. They regulate everything in a different sense. Even more importantly, though, is how they set up their social policies (ie: their budget). That is a much more socialist position than the US. Socialism (as opposed to Marxism or communism) is defined by its taxation and social programs than its economic programs.You must have missed about 57+ years of history. China is communist.

You must have missed about 57+ years of history. China is communist.
OOC: Please, let's not start up this old argument again...

The People's Republic is vehemently against this repeal, as labour unions are vitally important for defending worker's rights. Most of the points outlined in the repeal text are important to accomplish that.

In every sector, a strike should be an option. And that might be tough, because that can cause considerable problems. However, as a company or government, one should wonder why such major actions are necessary, and what they did wrong, rather than restrict those workers into nothing more but paid slavery.

In other words: vote for freedom, vote against this repeal!

You must have missed about 57+ years of history. China is communist.

Actually, it's not. Strictly speaking, communism has never been implemented.

*snip*
In every sector, a strike should be an option.
*snip*

And it should also be the employers' option to fire anyone who does not report to work.

Actually, it's not. Strictly speaking, communism has never been implemented.

At the national level, you mean. There have been successful instances of communism at the local government/community level.

When is a war declared, usually there is martial law implemented. And I guess union labor rights are suspended as well as other civil rights.

In peace time I guess it's ok with japonese-strikes, or even with partial strikes, even in militarised areas.

So, I am against this repeal :p

At the national level, you mean. There have been successful instances of communism at the local government/community level.

Of course.

A liberal title is all it takes to get a bill passed I think that has been proven by the large amount of repeals that have been needed of late. I think the UN in this game is at a crucial point where they can start taking this stuff serious and actually proof read and research this stuff before proposing it or we can continue down the path that has caused so many people to have zero respect for the UN and be unwilling to take part in it.
One good point in a bill shouldn't be cause for keeping it or passing it when their are so many points that could be or are harmful. To say "hey this bill was introduced by a commi and in communism military isn't considered a paid civilian" is silly. That's like when these bills says things about federal prisons, not all UN nations have federal prisons. If people don't consider every UN nation when making a bill they shouldn't try to force their reckless legeslation on other UN nations. Nothing in this repeal prevents nations from giving unions rights, but the original bill does give unions a crown over non union workers and the government.

I vote AGAINST, one more regressive repeal.

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

I'm abstaining. Whilest I do believe that all peoples should be allowed to form or join trades unions, I feel there are problems with the original resolution. Thus, if it were passed and then replaced, that would be best.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports the original resolution and therefore will be voting AGANST the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Although the text of the repeal contains a fallacious argument, that point is now moot. This will be voted on. Yeldan UN Mission has cast our regions vote against this repeal. The original resolution is flexible enough so as to allow national laws preventing essential personnel from striking. I've read the original many times and it never once occured to me that it allowed our police, military or medical sectors to strike. If your miltary is allowed to walk off the job, fine. Ours isn't. I encourage all members to vote against this ill-conceived repeal.

What the hell is wrong with the UN lately? Are the UN turning fascist? Why the hell do you people want to abolish THE RIGHT to have unions? Shouldn't the workers have rights and have them defended?

The greedy rich and powerful are now in command of the laws of the world. Beware.

I vote against the resolution, even though the sheep that are the UN members always vote for, even without reading them.

What the hell is wrong with the UN lately? Are the UN turning fascist? Why the hell do you people want to abolish THE RIGHT to have unions? Shouldn't the workers have rights and have them defended?

The greedy rich and powerful are now in command of the laws of the world. Beware.
1) Calm down.
2) If the repeal succeeds, work will begin on a stronger (and bulletproof) replacement immediately. Promise.

I vote against the resolution, even though the sheep that are the UN members always vote for, even without reading them.
Way to win over the punters, Einstein.

2) If the repeal succeeds, work will begin on a stronger (and bulletproof) replacement immediately. Promise.

Please don't.

Please don't.

dittos! My government will only support a replacement that allows workers some say over where their dues go politically. And that has about as much chance of getting approved as a one-legged man winning a butt-kicking contest.

dittos! My government will only support a replacement that allows workers some say over where their dues go politically. And that has about as much chance of getting approved as a one-legged man winning a butt-kicking contest.

You mean, him?

http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/IMPTYV/IMPTYVMP009_360.jpeg

How individual nations deal with collective bargaining agreements between businesses and workers is not a concern for the UN, especially considering all of the other labor rights bills we have. Approve the appeal and let goverments have the freedom to do what is appropriate for their own nations.

There are only two kinds of countries in the real world with direct bans on unions fascism and communism. China and Cuba ban unions not democratic countries. The strongest economies have the strongest unions-- the Scandinavian countries, Japan, Germany, and the United States.

There are only two kinds of countries in the real world with direct bans on unions fascism and communism. China and Cuba ban unions not democratic countries. The strongest economies have the strongest unions-- the Scandinavian countries, Japan, Germany, and the United States.

(OOC: and the UK... but maybe it's only the strongest economies that can afford strong unions?)

In my earlier post, I forgot to mention that unions and workers' rights are not synonymous with being bad for a companies or bad for business. I would direct everyone interested in this topic to read Maverick by Ricardo Semler. Semler took over his families company and completely changed the paradigms and, as a result, boosted his company's productivity and profitability AND became the only company in Brazil to be viewed very favorably by BOTH the business community AND the nation's unions (one leader of a powerful Brazilian union called him the only trustworthy businessman in all of Brazil). It does not have to be either/or and it can be beneficial to both "sides".

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist

You mean, him?

http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/IMPTYV/IMPTYVMP009_360.jpeg

LOL. Actually http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/t/tenaciousz/05.jpg came to mind.

There are only two kinds of countries in the real world with direct bans on unions fascism and communism. China and Cuba ban unions not democratic countries. The strongest economies have the strongest unions-- the Scandinavian countries, Japan, Germany, and the United States.

Cluichstan is not against the formation of unions, nor is our nation fascist or communist. We believe firmly in the right to assemble. However, we also believe that employers should be allowed to terminate the employment of workers who "go on strike." If you do not report to work, that should be justifiable cause for termination of employment.

Please repeal this resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

However, we also believe that employers should be allowed to terminate the employment of workers who "go on strike." If you do not report to work, that should be justifiable cause for termination of employment.

Please repeal this resolution.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
There is no effect without cause. The question of why an employee takes industrial action is of prime importance.

MV

Not to us. If working conditions, for example, lead workers to "go on strike," they should look for someplace else to work.

Just curious: When are people going to stop creating a slew of repeals for minute details and start drafting the actual replacement legislation so many of these proposals talk about? It looks to me like empty rhetoric... people repealing decent laws due to some small technicality, with no real intention of replacing it with something better, leaving just a void behind.

Just curious: When are people going to stop creating a slew of repeals for minute details and start drafting the actual replacement legislation so many of these proposals talk about? It looks to me like empty rhetoric... people repealing decent laws due to some small technicality, with no real intention of replacing it with something better, leaving just a void behind.
Drafting replacements takes time. You're welcome to contribute, of course. But that'd probably be too much like, you know, not pointlessly whining because a resolution your region has an attachment is up for repeal for reasons entirely unrelated to the ones you'd like it to be up for repeal for.

(My that was convoluted.)

LAE oppose this repeal, we think the clause 4 of the repeal discredit unfairly the original resolution and then lower the standard of the UN legislation as a whole.

Even if unions have had their lot of excess, we really think they have bring and continue to bring many significant social advances to most nations in the world, and we think their existence is a factor of social and economic stability.

The original resolution is not perfect, but for us there are no major flows; should the repeal pass, we hope a new one will be drafted.

I agree with an earlier post. anything proposed by someone with the word "Soviet" in it cannot be good. We support the repeal.
Happy Trails,
Texas Jack Funk
Deputy Ambassador,
Palentine UN Office

I have voted against this repeal, and will be urging others in the regions I have nations in to do the same. I don't see this as a crap resolution that needs repealing, but as an important resolution that deserves to stay on the books.

None of the arguements against it have any real merit in my opinion. The post not too far above mine that partly says, and I quote...

anything proposed by someone with the word "Soviet" in it cannot be good.

seems to tell me that this repeal attempt is more an attack against workers and their rights and an attack against the politics of the author, than an attempt to improve the quality of UN resolutions.

anything proposed by someone with the word "Soviet" in it cannot be good. We support the repeal.

My, what a cogent, well reasoned and persuasive argument you have there, really touching on all of the key issues in this complex debate. :headbang:

Each clause of this repeal resolution is deeply flawed:
1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

In fact the existing resolution allows individual nations plenty of scope to accomodate these concerns.

2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

Why should a resolution on Unionised workers deal with non-Unionised workers. Again, existing resolution existing resolution allows individual nations latitude to deal with this

3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers

People don't join unions that are act against the interest of their members as to do so would defeat the purpose. However I see no reason why there should be a ban on people joining the Masochist union if they wanted to.

This is a cynical attempt to do away with reasonable protection on workers rights. The existing resolution is both well rounded and moderate. People should recognise that in any society a balance should be struck between economic and social interests and that moderate trade unions are part of striking that balance.

SICA URGES FELLOW UN MEMBERS TO VOTE NO!

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.

The original resolution adequately address all the objections of the repeal.

His Majesty Majester recognises that the people of the Principlaity of Majester oppose the repeal of this resolution, and urges other nations to recognise this cynical attack on liberty and industry using manufactured fears and misinformation.

The more I read this thread the more concerned I become.


Quote:
2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

Why should a resolution on Unionised workers deal with non-Unionised workers. Again, existing resolution existing resolution allows individual nations latitude to deal with this

Have you read the powers the original bill gives unions? Nothing stops the Unions from threatening strikes if their company uses a non union plant as a supplier. As someone you actually works in a manufacturing plant that is non union and sends parts to union plants I would hate to think we could be forced to go union or lose all our buisness. I'm proud to be non union and I would hate to be union when local and federal laws in the United States give us all the protection needed. Unions are like a pyramid scheme these days where the forced dues go to the top to feed corruption. Look people it isn't 1950. Not all countries even still have the need for unions.
Why are we so busy repealing bills? That's caused by others writing and passing poorly thought up bills.
I don't know why I bother writing here, anyone taking time to read this would have also taken time to actually read the bill.

1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

So what? The military does not need to unionize. The Military will not go on strike. The military is the military. It is not a democracy. The military is a dictatorship set in place to protect a democracy.

2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

The reason it doesn't account for that is to allow individual nations to pass specific laws related to their own nations issues. This problem can be easily handled by laws set in place by individual nations. It allows more individual nation cotrol.


3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers

See above. Again, easily remedied by individual nation laws.

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

This may have been the one selling point, but nothing I researched really specified what the writer meant, and I felt that point was too vauge for me to justify voting to repeal a good law.

Honestly, the union system is not perfect. But it's good enough. Unions allow easier, if not completely efficiant ruling. The purpose of a union is to look out fora worker's best interests. If a worker feels it's union is not doing that, hen they need a new union. The better our union systems are, the better we as leaders can serve our nations' peoples. And at the moment, this is a pretty good union system, and I don't wish to endorse nullifying it until a more perfect alternative is presented.

And yes, I am aware that the proposal calls for individual actions:
THEREFORE it is recommended that the each member nation decide on their own legislation concerning the implementation of unions.

The problem is that the current draft never says you /can't/ make there own laws, just not laws that completely contradict the current laws.
IE:
Current law: "You may have a union."
My law: "You may have a union, but we catch you bullying non-unioners, it will be revoked.

This is acceptable. I have taken the law and tweaked it to meet my needs.

It makes no sense to nullify such an easily adaptable law that serves to suit all needs with a little easy fine tuning.

Out of 8 pages I've seen maybe 2 people who actually support this repeal.

Perhaps the author of this repeal should post here in defense of his handiwork?

I agree with an earlier post. anything proposed by someone with the word "Soviet" in it cannot be good. We support the repeal.
Happy Trails,
Texas Jack Funk
Deputy Ambassador,
Palentine UN Office
Nekulturny! You would not say that if you had ever tried Fine Soviet Arkansan Vodka™. Here, now you will try some.

*hands a 1 litre bottle of Fine Soviet Arkansan Vodka™ to Texas Jack Funk*

It is good, yes?

[Lustfully eying the Soviet Arkansan's gift, Brown quickly jumps up and intercepts the whiskey bottle before Texas Jack can seize it.]

Hang on there, Jack. This may seem like a kind gesture and all, but you and I both know better than to blindly trust some ruddy communist! Remember Reagan? "Trust, but verify"? I strongly recommend that you employ a tester before drinking this ... communist ... beverage, and I strongly recommend that the tester be me.

[Immediately cracks open the bottle and takes a giant swig. Waits a few seconds.]

Well, I haven't collapsed yet, so obviously the poison is in the bottom of the bottle!!

[Raises bottle again, tilts head back and greedily guzzles down more, heavily slurring between swigs:]

It will be an honor to die in your service, Your Funkiness! *Hic!*

George Brown
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

I agree with an earlier post. anything proposed by someone with the word "Soviet" in it cannot be good. We support the repeal.

This is a classic example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem -- attacking the arguer rather than attacking the argument he makes. If the arguments made by "someone with the word 'Soviet' in it" are incorrect, then they are incorrect because they are incorrect, not because they are made by "someone with the word 'Soviet' in it."

Christelle Zyryanov coughed lightly, and took the stand, facing the insanely large room filled with her fellow delegates from thousands of nations. Microphones amplified her words, sending them into thousands of earpieces, most often filtered through busily working translators behind the semi-opaque windows she could see off to the side.

"I'll come straight to the point," she began bluntly. "We in the PDSRA feel that this resolution, coming as it does on the heals of several other repeals, is cause for significant concern. This august body is slowly but surely undoing much of the good it has painstakingly accomplished over the past years.

I, for one, do not believe that the authors of these numerous repeals are interested in replacement resolutions supplementing the void they create. They are interested only in creating that void. In striking down progressive and essential legislation which you, my fellow delegates, saw fit to approve. As did I. The authors of these repeals are following a clear ideological agendum, and seeking to draw you along in its wake.

And they are doing so cleverly. Their words are designed to appeal to all of you. Those who oppose the initial resolution, but also those who feel it would indeed need replacing. But do not be fooled. These repeals are not designed to pave the way for replacements. They are simply a means to lash out at essential social and environmental legislation. We have proof enough of it. Repeals follow repeals in quick succession, all supposedly calling for new, constructive legislation, and yet that new legislation never comes. The authors of the repeals, you can be sure, will never write it.

You are not voting to pave the way for improved resolutions. You are voting to destroy merely what we have, on the basis of technicalities. I see nothing which indicates that the flaws of the original resolution up for repeal could not be addressed by supplementary national legislation, which, far from forbidding, it encourages.

Delegates, the advocates of this repeal are playing you for fools.

Thank you for your time."

She stepped off the podium, and returned to her seat - quietly thankful that she had not got too many hundred stairs to climb to reach Ariddia's seat.


OOC: ESAT (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT) is Ariddia's official puppet nation for UN purposes. Ariddia has resigned from the UN, and transferred its membership to ESAT.

Well, it's gone to vote, so the mods can't delete it now. I think it's best to move on from the illegality or otherwise, and discuss if, substantively, we want this to pass. No one has yet been able to rebut point 1 of the repeal; there are certain sectors where strike action - not all industrial action, but specifically strike action - is completely out of the question. Is anyone going to try, or are we to assume the opponents of this repeal would rather we had doctors and soldiers striking than the thought that the proletariat might be shackled by us beastly capitos?

Let's see, that would be:
1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

I'm not entirely convinced the original law is guilty as charged, but let's suppose it is.

My initial reaction is to say that this should be the subject of a special law exempting vital services and leaving them, ideally, to the decision within individual nations (with an Issue, if that's not asking too much): for example, if I had a militia, I would not want them exempted, except perhaps, in certain specific circumstances, regarding the unrestricted right to strike. That should be my choice. OTOH I agree that we don't want doctors striking, but why should they? Treating a doctor badly enough that he/she ignores the desire to heal that got them in the job to begin with is really a way of saying, "we don't deserve good doctors". Or for the more pragmatic among us, the nature of the profession is such that there is little if any reason for doctors to strike. You have to work at mistreating doctors.

I suppose I consider the "essential services" argument something of a red herring. It takes our eye off the vast number of workers who should not have their rights to unionization removed or over-regulated for the benefit of the kind of people who wish everyone (but themselves) would work for starvation wages and be grateful they get paid at all.

"Essential services" also becomes a loophole for companies with large legal departments. I've seen (only in RL, I confess) a company have all its workers, some 3,000 of them, declared "essential workers" because one department, approximately 350 if you include every office worker and other employee who had support and admin duties for that department, were working on a government defence project. The result was that all 3,000 were threatened with criminal trial if they went ahead with strike action. There was the ludicrous spectacle of the janitors in a completely different division, on a completely different site, being declared "essential workers" and losing their right to strike for the sake of work done by 350 people who had nothing to do with them.

I've given an example of how the category of essential workers works badly in one direction. I'm sure those who favour this repeal similarly could give examples of how it works badly in the opposite direction. There is a saying that "extreme cases make bad laws". It's my belief that the subject of essential workers, whether used for or against union rights, is an extreme case. IMO the category of essential workers should be handled separately, with much consideration given to how we define such workers and for how to prevent the category being abused by either "side", since it seems we must have sides on this.

The issue (for myself at least) isn't whether some of us would "rather we had doctors and soldiers striking than the thought that the proletariat might be shackled by us beastly capitos" -- an emotive argument using a false black/white dichotomy to cloud the issue. The issue is whether our national priority is to protect the rights of individuals and groups not to be misused for the sake of the collective, or whether our priority is to protect the rights of the collective not to be limited by giving rights to the individuals and groups that comprise that collective.

IMO the present law respects the individuals and groups that make up our societies and nations and protects them from being turned into mere parts of a machine.

Mmm... that would be amusing.

So we just need someone to get a Resolution establishing the law of gravity (and make it legal somehow), and then we can Repeal it.

WHAT?! You mean we aren't currently subject to gravity in NS?

Who knew?

On behalf of the region of moonflow Darvainia voices its support for this resolution, it is time to return this issue to the individual nations, and give us the ability to hold them accountable for ethical violations.
Thank you.

This repeal is proposed just to restrain the workers rights in behalf of the companies.

The initial resolution is just making sure that the workers can form independent unions in order to protect their rights.

I fail to see any antithesis between the resolution and the individual countries authority upon their working laws.

Balkan Banania is AGAINST the repeal.

DAHlings, I would be cheating on the Conservative government that appointed me if I failed to vote AGAINST this quite unnecessary repeal.

The unions of Lloegeyr are a fine conservative force in our society. They restrain the madder Ayn Rand-ish economic flights of the young entrepreneurs. Similarly, the good old businessman-in-the-street restrains the wilder political flights of the young unionists.

Between them, Capital and Labour keep our progress to a nice steady stroll that we can all keep up with comfortably. We all benefit from the creative tension between these two opponents when they are equally matched.

There seems little point in putting our thumb on the scales to make them tip crazily in one direction, which is precisely what this repeal would do. The sort of civil unrest that it would cause as unions struggled to keep halfway decent working conditions might even end, all gods forbid, in somebody dying in a labour dispute.

We had that happen at the turn of last century and we still haven't recovered from the outbreak of absolutely terrible verse, ballads and folksongs it provoked. Every time we think they've been forgotten, some hotshot from the Lloegeyr Broadcasting Corporation does another documentary on the Railwaytown Riot and revives them all over again.

Seriously, possums, don't put yourselves through this, it's not worth it. Knock this repeal in the head. Learn the Lesson of Lloegeyr!

Oh, and don't forget my regular little soiree this Saturday, will you? Just mention me by name -- Dame Andrea Fairfax-Fraser -- and you'll be in the draw for the door prize: it's Songs of Struggle, by the wonderfully tuneful United Lloegeyr Mineworkers' Choir!

Out of 8 pages I've seen maybe 2 people who actually support this repeal.

Perhaps the author of this repeal should post here in defense of his handiwork?

There's not much in it that can be defended.

And it should also be the employers' option to fire anyone who does not report to work.

No it shouldn't. Workers should be protected from easy firing. Employers already have a position of power, so unions are needed to balance the power.

*snip*This shameful stunt really is unworthy of the Ariddians; maybe if it came from a delegation whose entire "agendum" of late wasn't "The UN headquarters should be located in Ariddia," we'd know to take this more seriously. So, the proponents of these repeals are simply trying to "deceive" the UN into reversing much of the "good" it's done in the past in order to create a "void"? Well, let's examine the evidence: Save the forests of the World did nothing. MANDATORY RECYCLING did nothing. Stop dumping - Start Cleaning did nothing. The Law of the Sea was utterly insane, unenforceable and plainly illegal. You cannot create a "void" where there was nothing to begin with.

As to the lack of replacement legislation, my dear, there is enough of that going around to make us ill; our throats are sore from threatening to invade all the idiots crying out for "replacement." Gruenberg is sponsoring a possible replacement for LoTS; the Greenies are considering replacing Sd-SC; replacement(s) for UCPL are also on the table. Besides, where are your proposals?! You're the ones griping about a lack of proactive work and replacement legislation being done in the UN; well, where are the bills you have authored to fill the "void"? The UN is not an oligarchy, you know; any member can propose legislation. Where's yours?! ... Yeah, that's what I thought.

My advice to you, dear Ariddians, after having staged this uninformed, accusatory, ad hominem rant: Calm the fuck down, have a beer, learn to relax and get over yourselves. You have contributed nothing to this discussion.

No it shouldn't. Workers should be protected from easy firing. Employers already have a position of power, so unions are needed to balance the power.

If unions are "needed," why aren't there unions for every profession?

Nothing stops the Unions from threatening strikes if their company uses a non union plant as a supplier.

But they probably won't get a lot of support for that, get less members, won't be taken seriously. It'll stop soon enough.

And without unions, workers can still go on strike if their company uses the wrong supplier, or because of the coffee tasting foul. Unions don't matter for that.

If unions are "needed," why aren't there unions for every profession?

There are.

And especially for those professions like the millitary, healthcare, etc who shouldn't be allowed to strike according to some. Especially those important people should be allowed to go on strike if their employment conditions are bad. It's not a matter of taking another job: conditions are probably just as bad, and you need the wages to feed the family. Unions are there to protect the workers, and they need it. So unions for all professions, and the right to form a union and the right to strike for everybody.

OOC: here in .nl, there are unions for all professions - even prostitutes. "essential" services like doctors, firemen and garbage collectors have been on strike, and guess what: it all turned out right.

There are.

And especially for those professions like the millitary, healthcare, etc who shouldn't be allowed to strike according to some. Especially those important people should be allowed to go on strike if their employment conditions are bad. It's not a matter of taking another job: conditions are probably just as bad, and you need the wages to feed the family. Unions are there to protect the workers, and they need it. So unions for all professions, and the right to form a union and the right to strike for everybody.

Oh, sure, everyone can go on strike, but they can't expect their jobs to be waiting for them when they come back. Strikes should involve the potential for sacrifice. Otherwise, they get abused.

In RL good ol' Ronnie(President Reagan) taught the Air Traffic Controllers a valuable lesson of striking and sacrifice. God I miss Ronnie.:(

In RL good ol' Ronnie(President Reagan) taught the Air Traffic Controllers a valuable lesson of striking and sacrifice. God I miss Ronnie.:(

OOC: Me, too. :(

In RL good ol' Ronnie(President Reagan) taught the Air Traffic Controllers a valuable lesson of striking and sacrifice. God I miss Ronnie.:(Amen.

Because, obviously, the workers aren't giving their paychecks or anything like that up when they go on strike...

Oh wait, they are.

I'm voting against simply because it's another damn repeal. Put something else on the floor besides repeals, for Pete's sake. Have some respect for those nations that came before us.

I'm voting against simply because it's another damn repeal. Put something else on the floor besides repeals, for Pete's sake. Have some respect for those nations that came before us.
You're welcome to submit a proposal yourself. Or to contribute to the many proposals being discussed in this forum. You can, of course, choose not to do this, and to simply complain about the number of repeals whilst not doing anything to rectify the situation. But the first two options might be more...satisfying?

See, that wouldn't really help much. (And I have put one proposal out there; it didn't survive to see the floor.) All I could do to stem the tide of repeals is:
*Not submit a repeal myself.
*As regional delegate (which I am not going to be getting anytime soon), withhold support of repeals.

The way to rectify there not being any more repeals is for nations to once in a while accept that something has been accepted by the assembly and to not, immediately upon passage, fire off an immediate repeal proposal. And the regional delegates need to accept that as well. You can't really DO anything to stem the tide. It's about NOT doing something- aka, ignoring the repeals by withholding support until they go away.

Really, at this point, all the repeals are doing is clogging up the floor so the new ideas have to wait and wait and wait.

This resolution was submitted over a year ago. Gay Rights is 2 years old. Abortion Rights is old, too. How are these 'immediate' repeals? And if it's not about DOing anything, then what is it about? Hollow complaints. Mind you, I suppose your assertion that the UN has 'decided' this issue is borne out by the vote count for this repeal....










....OH WAIT!

Really, at this point, all the repeals are doing is clogging up the floor so the new ideas have to wait and wait and wait.

No. If new ideas do not reach the floor, it is because there are not enough good ideas submitted. The standards of this body have increased substantially since the early days.

Repeals are legitimate legislation with legitimate effects. Most of us judge them on their merits, rather than whining about the word repeal. Of course, you are free to vote against every single one of them, even if you disagree with the original resolutions. It is just not very coherent.

Oh, sure, everyone can go on strike, but they can't expect their jobs to be waiting for them when they come back. Strikes should involve the potential for sacrifice. Otherwise, they get abused.

You're being silly. Come back when you want serious discussion.

I'm voting against this. People keep on making "repeal [insert issue here]" and saying it will make way for a better, less vague resolution. WHERE ARE ALL THE BETTER RESOLUTIONS? So far there hasn't been a single new resolution replacing any of the repealed ones.

I'm voting against this. People keep on making "repeal [insert issue here]" and saying it will make way for a better, less vague resolution. WHERE ARE ALL THE BETTER RESOLUTIONS? So far there hasn't been a single new resolution replacing any of the repealed ones.
Err...not quite true.

The Global Library --> Repeal --> Universal Library Coalition
Elimination of Bio Weapons --> Repeal --> UN Biological Weapons Ban
National Systems of Tax --> Repeal --> Representation in Taxation

Perhaps not surprisingly, replacements for more recent repeals haven't been finalised yet. This isn't because the authors (and I admit to a vested interest here) are especially lazy, but because, instead of contributing to the drafting of new legislation, people are intent on having their little tantrums about the UN not doing anything. If you want a proposal that doesn't have 'repeal' in the title WRITE ONE.

My advice to you, dear Ariddians, after having staged this uninformed, accusatory, ad hominem rant: Calm the fuck down, have a beer, learn to relax and get over yourselves.

Ambassador Zyryanov stood with a faint smile of condescending amusement.

"Your inane rantings, my dear colleague, are noted and quietly dismissed. The original resolutions did contribute something to the body of United Nations legislations, in terms of principle if nothing else. You are the one advocating a repeal, not I, so why do you not tell us clearly what replacement legislation you would advocate? Let us not play role reversals here. I would suggest you learn to conduct yourself in a manner more fitting to this august setting, if you do not wish to incur further ridicule. You will note that I have never raised my voice. Thank you for your time."

She sat back down, chuckling to herself and shaking her head.


OOC: Just to make it perfectly clear, in case it wasn't, that earlier post was IC. I see no reason not to roleplay UN proceedings. I'd appreciate you laying off the baseless ad hominems, though.

Im not entirely sure if I understand this repeal, I haven't been to NationStates for awhile. Could someone please specify exactly what this would do for my country if it were to go into law?

See, that wouldn't really help much. (And I have put one proposal out there; it didn't survive to see the floor.) All I could do to stem the tide of repeals is:
*Not submit a repeal myself.
*As regional delegate (which I am not going to be getting anytime soon), withhold support of repeals.

The way to rectify there not being any more repeals is for nations to once in a while accept that something has been accepted by the assembly and to not, immediately upon passage, fire off an immediate repeal proposal. And the regional delegates need to accept that as well. You can't really DO anything to stem the tide. It's about NOT doing something- aka, ignoring the repeals by withholding support until they go away.

Really, at this point, all the repeals are doing is clogging up the floor so the new ideas have to wait and wait and wait.

We share the representative of Great Plains' discomfort with the current plethora of repeals which have entered the queue as of late. We disagree with his course of action, however.

The Ausserland delegation sees its duty as being to judge all proposals that come before this body -- repeals or otherwise -- on their merits. We believe we have the responsibility to our nation and its citizens to support both new legislation and repeals that we see as having positive consequences. To refuse to support a repeal just because it is a repeal would, we believe, be a violation of our trust.

And to counter an implication in the representative's posting.... Repeals were first allowed in the NSUN in the fourth quarter of 2004. Since that time, there have been only two "immediate" repeals: "Promotion of Solar Panels" and "Right to Divorce". In both cases, significant flaws in the resolutions were pointed out during debate. The author of "Solar Panels" concurred with the repeal of his own resolution. The co-author of "Right to Divorce" actively supported its repeal. A third "immediate" repeal proposal, "Repeal Fossil Fuel Reduction Act", failed to pass.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador Zyryanov stood with a faint smile of condescending amusement. ...So that's why we should keep these shit resolutions, out of "principle"? I could easily write a resolution entitled "Puppies Are Nice" that did absolutely nothing to protect puppies; that is mostly the grade of legislation we've been repealing of late. As for this repeal, I'm really not a hardcore supporter of it, so I see no reason why I should be the one proposing its replacement. But you can already see how your rants about little proactive legislation (or even "replacements," which we abhor) coming out of this body are misplaced.

[Riley sits back down and resumes reading his copy of Hustler.]

OOC: Just to make it perfectly clear, in case it wasn't, that earlier post was IC. I see no reason not to roleplay UN proceedings. I'd appreciate you laying off the baseless ad hominems, though.[OOC: My "baseless" "ad hominems" were entirely IC (even if the crack about the UN headquarters was actually referring to an OOC thread, but you get the idea). :p]

Zyryanov sighed, scratched the side of her head, and stood up again.

"My esteemed colleague makes a potentially valid point," she began, though not without a hint of irony in her voice. "However, I would point out that a resolution entitled "Puppies Are Nice" is not a likely occurrence. I can agree that strong environmental and social legislation which would actually enforce binding legal principles would be a wonderful thing. But I doubt the authors of these successive repeals would agree with me. Several of them, and their supporters, have attacked the principles themselves which these resolutions defended.

To claim that these repeals are intended to bring about better, more forceful legislation is hence misleading. I'm glad to see you are honest enough to state that you would not particularly favour replacements. But delegates have been misled into believing the authors of these repeals do favour replacements, and I for one believe delegates should know exactly what the consequences of their vote will be."

She sat back down, wishing she, too, had thought to bring something to read.


[OOC: My "baseless" "ad hominems" were entirely IC (even if the crack about the UN headquarters was actually referring to an OOC thread, but you get the idea). :p]

OOC: All right, then. Just clearing up any potential confusion on that point. ;)

klitvilia is all for Nations Rights to govern themselves, and we believe that the UN's primary responsiblity is to secure peace, and prevent inequality from spreading is tendrils

FOR the repeal

Im not entirely sure if I understand this repeal, I haven't been to NationStates for awhile. Could someone please specify exactly what this would do for my country if it were to go into law?Repeals "undo" the existing law. In game terms they have an opposite and lesser affect than the original Resolution did. Some made up numbers to illustrate:

If Social Justice:Strong reduced Economy by 20 points and raised Welfare by 20 points, a Repeal might increase Economy by 15 points and lower Welfare by 15 points.

Those ratios probably aren't right, but you get the idea. I haven't looked at the effects these things have in ages.

You're being silly. Come back when you want serious discussion.

OOC: No, I was (for a change) being completely serious.

Still OOC: And as for this "wah, wah, boohoo, another repeal" stuff, if delegates hadn't passed crap resolutions, we wouldn't be on this repeal binge. As Fonzo said, the standards of the UN are much higher now. Those of us who favour these repeals are doing so because we are trying to rectify what we see as past mistakes. I think I speak on behalf of all of us trying to clean up the NS UN's body of international law when I say that we're soooooooooo sorry if these repeals are taking floor time away from more crap proposals. If people hellbent on nothing more than passing new legislation for the sake of new legislation (ahem!) hadn't enshrined this rubbish into law, we wouldn't have anything to repeal.

Repeals "undo" the existing law. In game terms they have an opposite and lesser affect than the original Resolution did. Some made up numbers to illustrate:

If Social Justice:Strong reduced Economy by 20 points and raised Welfare by 20 points, a Repeal might increase Economy by 15 points and lower Welfare by 15 points.

Those ratios probably aren't right, but you get the idea. I haven't looked at the effects these things have in ages.

But they still affect your stats even if you weren't around for the original, so it's not quite like redoing, correct?

i agree with the above. i am for the repeal. unions are a good thing.

Muffinkuchen and others: If you think 'unions are a good thing', you'd be AGAINST the repeal. Repealing #38 takes away union protections. Keeping #38 keeps unions protected. So don't take away #38, ie, vote against repeal.

Muffinkuchen and others: If you think 'unions are a good thing', you'd be AGAINST the repeal. Repealing #38 takes away union protections. Keeping #38 keeps unions protected. So don't take away #38, ie, vote against repeal.
One wonders how many of the "for" votes are from union supporters who don't understand what a repeal does. :(

Well, whatever they're doing, petal, they're not listening to us. I've just been handed the following tally:

REPEALS Resolution #38 "The Right of Labor Unions"

Votes For: 5,926

Votes Against: 3,039.

A while ago I was having a chat in the lobby with another delegate, and when I was talking to him the phrase 'wolf-in-sheep's-clothing repeal' came tripping off my tongue. Because that's what it is! The preamble sounds as if it's saying, "Gee, aren't unions great!"; but the action it endorses says exactly the opposite.

Delegates seem to be awfully concerned about their militaries going on strike. The thought that worries me is the possibility that soldiers will fail to go on strike -- or mutiny, if you prefer the term.

I wish I didn't have the experience that makes it possible for me to imagine situations in which soldiers are ordered, repeatedly, to commit war-crimes. Unfortunately, I've been reading news headlines since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, so it's far too easy to imagine.

If the soldiers can't 'strike', or can't be protected by their collective, organised body if they do 'strike', what do they do? Quote some of the UN's human rights documents, I suppose. But the UN is far, far away, whereas their union is right there with them; it's their mates who are receiving the same orders. Instant support. Support that the repeal would take away, because the minute Resolution #38 is removed there'll be more governments forbidding unionism than you can shake a stick at.

It seems to me that the existing resolution allows a lot of leeway for nations to work out how they conduct their own industrial relations. It does say that they have to try to have industrial relations, rather than hand them over to the bully-boys. I can't see that that's such an intrusive resolution that it deserves to be wiped out.

In short, since my government is FOR unions, it's AGAINST the repeal.

Mutiny is a crime in most nations. I'd like to know where in the standing resolution you think it permits soldiers to commit crimes? Or, for that matter, where in UN conventions it allows their commanders to order war crimes?:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385142&postcount=114

One wonders how many of the "for" votes are from union supporters who don't understand what a repeal does. :(

Shush...just keep letting 'em vote for it. ;)

The preamble sounds as if it's saying, "Gee, aren't unions great!"; but the action it endorses says exactly the opposite.The word REPEAL in the title should be a hint as to what's going on here.

Delegates seem to be awfully concerned about their militaries going on strike. The thought that worries me is the possibility that soldiers will fail to go on strike -- or mutiny, if you prefer the term.Not even the most fuzzy-headed of RL nations that actually give their soldiers unions allow for striking. Irrelevent.

I wish I didn't have the experience that makes it possible for me to imagine situations in which soldiers are ordered, repeatedly, to commit war-crimes.You do know that soldiers are allowed to disobey illegal orders, right?

Unfortunately, I've been reading news headlines since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, so it's far too easy to imagine.Might want to look into the veracity of some of those. People have been known to lie before. The "Winter Soldiers" come to mind...

If the soldiers can't 'strike', or can't be protected by their collective, organised body if they do 'strike', what do they do?"Gee, Sarge... I don't think shooting these tied up children is the right thing to do." In all honesty, when you consider the amount of work required to have a legal strike, you aren't losing anything. If you're being ordered to commit a so-called war crime, you don't have time to go to your steward, initiate negotiations, go to arbitration, have a union-wide vote to strike and then go on strike. This isn't the movies; you don't just pick up a sign and start chanting.

(OOC: Phew! Lucky I looked in before I went out again! Wouldn't want anyone to think I was ducking an argument!)

IC (Dame Andrea): I have to say, dahlings, there's nothing like mention of the military to get everyone's knickers in a knot. Fortunately, I myself don't wear ... but perhaps we won't go into that just now. Right.

The word REPEAL in the title should be a hint as to what's going on here.

Sweetie, I've been picking up hints for a lo-o-ong time now. I just don't think that a repeal should hint that it's favouring one thing, when it's actually aimed at quite another. It's a way of garnering support from people who don't spend their NS time reading resolutions in detail. Okay, on their own heads be it, but unfortunately it's not just on their own heads.

Not even the most fuzzy-headed of RL nations that actually give their soldiers unions allow for striking. Irrelevent.

I thought it was RL arguments that were irrelevant here? *cheap jibe* However, I recognise your logic, and I certainly wouldn't want to be in battle when a soldiers' strike was called (though, as you say, a legal strike takes so long to organise that we wouldn't be in battle, we'd still be back at base voting. Not necessarily a bad thing. Jaw-jaw vs war-war, eh?)

My point is that it would have been better to negotiate with the soldiers before matters became desperate enough for a strike. Like, way back when you were setting up an army. If, during those negotiations, the soldiers indicated that they'd be willing to eschew battlefield strikes, or indeed any strikes, provided certain other conditions were met, fine, no probs. Negotiation between equals is a helluva lot different from I say, you do.

Besides, if, as we are constantly told in recruiting ads, the modern army is full of professionals, then surely they can have a 'professional association'.

Yes, I do know that soldiers are allowed to disobey illegal orders. I also know about peer pressure. I'm trying to give the peer pressure an outlet that will reinforce the 'disobeying' part, not the 'illegal orders' part.

I'm aware of the Eon and Wolfish Conventions and thank the Kennyite delegate for adding to my nightmares by pointing out the possibility of illegal orders involving biological warfare, which I'd managed, briefly, to put out of my mind.

I would have thought the author of the justly lauded Creative Solutions would have been the first to appreciate that, whereas mutiny is fairly generally a crime, and one, what's more, that frequently attracts draconic penalties, going on strike is (under #38) a protected industrial action.
(OOC: And now I'm away again.)

I am a new delegate here to the NSUN from the newly formed Principality of Dundalk Bay. My leader, Prince Seamus O' Toole, sends me as the representative for his nation. My first act as delegate to the NSUN is to endorse this repeal. I believe that labor contracts and issues should be left to the individual member nation of the NSUN. The NSUN is here to enforce international issues the issue of labor contracts is, in the opinion of this delegate, a domestic issue with little international reprecussion. I am also here to convey the regards of Prince Seamus O' Toole and his Irish citizens of the the Principality of Dundalk Bay.

I am in favor of the bill for a very simple reason. That is I believe the decision must be left to the individual member nations. By doing such we are taking steps to maximize the individul freedoms of the member nations. As opposed to letting those with the most power make the decisions for the little guy. So as we allow a greater level of freedom to individual nations, we are making greater steps toward liberty and freedom. Both of which, I feel, are necessary for the ideal we call justice, to maintain. Whether or not a nation is allowed to regulate labor strikes, let them do as they wish, or expell them all together, should be left up to the nation itself. Therefore we must take the oppurtunity to maximize the individual autonomy of each member nations, and vote For the Bill. So in conclusion I urge all undecided Delegates to vote in favor of this bill.

-Thank you
Rob Parker

OOC: No, I was (for a change) being completely serious.

Still OOC: And as for this "wah, wah, boohoo, another repeal" stuff, if delegates hadn't passed crap resolutions, we wouldn't be on this repeal binge. As Fonzo said, the standards of the UN are much higher now. Those of us who favour these repeals are doing so because we are trying to rectify what we see as past mistakes. I think I speak on behalf of all of us trying to clean up the NS UN's body of international law when I say that we're soooooooooo sorry if these repeals are taking floor time away from more crap proposals. If people hellbent on nothing more than passing new legislation for the sake of new legislation (ahem!) hadn't enshrined this rubbish into law, we wouldn't have anything to repeal.


OOC: then it's worrying the way you want to be able to loose your job quickly. And I wasn't saying "wah booh another repeal", I think the original is fine and doesn't require repealing.

OOC: then it's worrying the way you want to be able to loose your job quickly. And I wasn't saying "wah booh another repeal", I think the original is fine and doesn't require repealing.

OOC: If I don't show up to work, I deserve to lose my job. And the "wah-wah boohoo" comment wasn't directed at you, my friend, but rather those who are judging this proposal based simply on the word "repeal." Many of those, too, are relatively new nations (welcome to those who have just joined and are new to this forum!) and people who poke their heads into this forum very infrequently. I encourage both the former and the latter to participate more in the discussions here. Not only would it benefit the discussions here to include more voices, but they might also see that there's very good reason for the recent string of repeals.

I am very glad of this motion and will be proud to vote for it, as it will allow me the freedom to ban all trade unions in my country and liquidate those whom choose to go out on strike.

I am very glad of this motion and will be proud to vote for it, as it will allow me the freedom to ban all trade unions in my country and liquidate those whom choose to go out on strike.

I don't want to liquidate 'em(most union members are tough and stringy and would play hell with the quisinart:p ), My government wants the freedom to do a "Ronnie" if nessasary.
Excelsior,
the slightly hung over
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine Un Office

The United Socialist States of Freedony disagrees with the proposal and wishes other delegates to oppose this resolution.
First of all, the right of Labor Unions is vital for keeping the integrity of workers and protect them from abuses in all senses. Without these unions, who can grant them a good payment for satisfying their needs? Who can grant them safe conditions in their factories, farms, workshops or any other place in which they perform their labor? Who can grant them that they are not going to be fired for an unjustified reason?
Second, as a Socialist state, the delegation of Freedony wishes to end with the evil spread all over the world, called Capitalism. This cannot be achieved if the workers of all nations organize and gather in cooperatives, syndicates, or any other association that fight for their rights.
Third, if my delegation is not wrong, the UN Chart states that the UN tries to end with the poverty in all nations, so how can it repel a resolution for claiming rights to the workers? It is a contradiction for my delegation. If the UN bans the resolution, many countries will ban these unions too and will exploit many workers, which will increase poverty.
The United Socialist States of Freedony urges all left-wing nations to realize that if this proposal to ban the Labor Union resolution is passed, it will mean a retrocession in the progress that we are looking for.
Remember: Neither war between people, nor peace between classes

The United Socialist States of Freedony disagrees with the proposal and wishes other delegates to oppose this resolution.
First of all, the right of Labor Unions is vital for keeping the integrity of workers and protect them from abuses in all senses. Without these unions, who can grant them a good payment for satisfying their needs? Who can grant them safe conditions in their factories, farms, workshops or any other place in which they perform their labor? Who can grant them that they are not going to be fired for an unjustified reason?
Second, as a Socialist state, the delegation of Freedony wishes to end with the evil spread all over the world, called Capitalism. This cannot be achieved if the workers of all nations organize and gather in cooperatives, syndicates, or any other association that fight for their rights.
Third, if my delegation is not wrong, the UN Chart states that the UN tries to end with the poverty in all nations, so how can it repel a resolution for claiming rights to the workers? It is a contradiction for my delegation. If the UN bans the resolution, many countries will ban these unions too and will exploit many workers, which will increase poverty.
The United Socialist States of Freedony urges all left-wing nations to realize that if this proposal to ban the Labor Union resolution is passed, it will mean a retrocession in the progress that we are looking for.
Remember: Neither war between people, nor peace between classes

"There you go again..."
-President Ronald Reagan

I just don't think that a repeal should hint that it's favouring one thing, when it's actually aimed at quite another. It's a way of garnering support from people who don't spend their NS time reading resolutions in detail. Okay, on their own heads be it, but unfortunately it's not just on their own heads.And yet, the most poorly writting nonsense frequently sails through simply because it says "Environmental: All Business". Besides, it's something of common practice to be nice before shredding something: "While the honorable representative from Moneylaunderingstan does indeed have very nice hair, we're positive he's a filthy mobster who should be gunned down in the street."

If people can't be bothered to read the Proposal they're voting on, then they deserve what they get. It's not a thesis on quantum mechanics, after all.

My point is that it would have been better to negotiate with the soldiers before matters became desperate enough for a strike.Except that defeats the central concepts that make good militaries good. You don't (or rather, shouldn't) join the military to "be your own person" or anything like that. The entire point of all the traditions is to remove individuality. Everyone dresses the same, has the same hair cut, sleeps in the same quarters, eats the same food, etc. Joining the military is supposed to be about serving the country in question. When you allow for unionization and things of that sort, you undermine the military. Yes, soldiers should still know right from wrong, but beyond that, their personal opinions are largely irrelevent. They're there to serve; not wax poetic about how their olive drab uniforms are a little depressing.

Like, way back when you were setting up an army. If, during those negotiations, the soldiers indicated that they'd be willing to eschew battlefield strikes, or indeed any strikes, provided certain other conditions were met, fine, no probs.This ignores the typical method of military formation. Most early militaries are ad hoc creations that are later codified. Furthermore, this, again, goes against the entire point of militaries. The entire concept is, frankly, mind boggling.

Negotiation between equals is a helluva lot different from I say, you do.Well, yes. Unfortunately, the military isn't about being "equal", it's about following orders and doing as you're told.

Besides, if, as we are constantly told in recruiting ads, the modern army is full of professionals, then surely they can have a 'professional association'.A professional soldier kills people. Rather a different mindset than being a professional janitor, no? Getting people who are willing to kill complete and utter strangers either involves intensive conditioning and training, or it involves hiring psychopaths. Psychopaths are a bad thing, so most militaries pick the former option; which doesn't lend itself to negotiating as equals.

I'm trying to give the peer pressure an outlet that will reinforce the 'disobeying' part, not the 'illegal orders' part.Um... what? So you think that mutiny is a good thing? "No, I don't think I'll go to the front lines, sir. You'll have to talk to my steward."

First of all, the right of Labor Unions is vital for keeping the integrity of workers and protect them from abuses in all senses. Without these unions, who can grant them a good payment for satisfying their needs?The market that won't function properly if people are under paid? And let's not forget about the numerous abuses perpetrated against union members by their own union officials. Or the fact that, for instance, the head of my local union makes about 3.5 times as much money as I do; to say nothing of the national head.

Who can grant them safe conditions in their factories, farms, workshops or any other place in which they perform their labor?Employers who realise that having workers dying left and right isn't a good thing? This isn't 1920, you know.

Who can grant them that they are not going to be fired for an unjustified reason?Laws against wrongful termination, perhaps?

Second, as a Socialist state, the delegation of Freedony wishes to end with the evil spread all over the world, called Capitalism.Uh-huh. I'll stick with ideologies that, ya know, actually work.

This cannot be achieved if the workers of all nations organize and gather in cooperatives, syndicates, or any other association that fight for their rights.As they slowly errode their own freedom and their own income. Gotcha.

Third, if my delegation is not wrong, the UN Chart states that the UN tries to end with the poverty in all nationsThe who-what-now? What Chart? Is that like The Big Board?

Oh! Did you mean the UN Charter? The one that, you know, doesn't exist here?

If the UN bans the resolution, many countries will ban these unions too and will exploit many workers, which will increase poverty.Slippery slope fallacy. By and large, most nations (assuming a base in reality) will continue to have unions as removing them would be more expensive and cause more problems than simply letting them to continue to operate. Never underestimate the laziness of national governments.

The United Socialist States of Freedony urges all left-wing nations to realize that if this proposal to ban the Labor Union resolution is passedTry reading the Repeal. It doesn't outlaw a damn thing. It simply removes a law forcing nations to allow. If this passes and a nation wants to outlaw unions, they need to change their laws.

Remember: Neither war between people, nor peace between classesWhat do you think makes up classes? People. Advocating war between classes necessitates war between people.

Sheej... do Marxists even think anymore?

While we do believe that resolutions that appear weak or ill-expressed need some work, it's still dangerous to repeal everything (so it seems lately)! And, while many resonable-seeming justifications have been given here and elsewhere, perhaps it's time to slow down. So far it looks like a yes vote for repeal--but, friends, we see too that this is far from being a lock, as the no votes seem to be rolling in....would anyone care to ask why?
:confused:

FROM: The Democratic States of Setnickyism, United Nations Delegate from the Grand Region of Toms River Nations
To: Anyone in the UN who it may concern

Why would we strip unions of their rights? This is a terrible decision and the Democratic States of Setnickyism does not support it. :mad:

Has anyone else noticed that no matter what the resolution is, whatever the left-leaning view is, that is always what is passed?

Correction, what I meant was, the resolutions are always passed.

Correction, what I meant was, the resolutions are always passed.
Err...the left-leaning view on this would be against. The repeal is 3,000 votes ahead.

So...no.

Correction, what I meant was, the resolutions are always passed.
Time to educate another newbie, resolutions are not always passed. While admittedly every resolution that has come up for vote so far this year has passed, not all resolutions that come up for vote pass. Bear in mind that the game only tracks those that do pass, if you want to see the complete history of UN resolutions you should check out this link. http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

death to union.

Yes... or we could, perhaps, try to be a little more specific. My Interior Minister informs me that simply sending a general death sentence to all Union members would probably not be good for our national workforce.

A much better way of dealing with them is simply to regulate their power. By all means, let them think they're in control - just make sure that they are not.

i agree with the above. i am for the repeal. unions are a good thing.
OOC: somewhat retrospectively...

IC: Mathieu Vergniaud had been slumped in his seat, head in hands. He looked up and fixed his gaze on the Muffinkuchen delegate, whose earnest features betrayed a certain satisfaction with their first contribution to UN debate. He paused for thought, contemplating his next move and how it might be interpreted by his fellow delegates. Could he really so openly concede defeat?

The words echoed in his head.

"i agree with the above, i am for..."

He snorted in disgust, abruptly stood up and walked out of the chamber.

Probably best for me to stay OOC... my character who'd respond is... mean.

OOC: LOL and thankyou. I don't know how Dame Andrea Fraser-Fairfax would react to being Most Gloriously Hacked, but I suspect it would be unbecoming and involve serious misuse of umbrellas.

IC: Well, you've all gone and done it now, haven't you, all you little twinkling eyes out there watching but evidently not listening to this debate? Nothing for us to do now but pack up our notes and go cry in our beer in the Strangers Bar, right?

Not quite. Even though it may be flogging a few dead horses, I feel it only polite to finish my conversation with, among others, the imposing speaker in the yellow cowl, who said ...

When you allow for unionization and things of that sort, you undermine the military.

Well, my response to that is (*Dame Andrea adopts 'mad scientist' voice*) Curses, who told you? Who revealed my secret plan? Was it you, Igor? Igor? IGOR!!!

Just my little joke there. But you have, indeed, expressed my postion beautifully, if you'll just add, " ... the military as we know it."

Then there was,

Unfortunately, the military isn't about being "equal", it's about following orders and doing as you're told.

Unfortunately, yes, that's what most militaries currently are.

Finally,

Um... what? So you think that mutiny is a good thing? "No, I don't think I'll go to the front lines, sir. You'll have to talk to my steward."

Well, there I really must apologise, because I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't talking about tactics; it'd be like on a building site, if the site manager says, "Pour the concrete here," the builders' labourers don't say, "Nah, we think it'd be better over there."

But they might say, "We don't pour until we're certain nobody's still fiddling around with the forme. Saw a bloke caught in a concrete pour once. Not pretty."

Now I think that sort of 'mutiny' is a good thing, and I don't see why any reasonable human beings should give up the right to it just because they're in uniform. Or be threatened with all the unpleasant consequences that attach to the word 'mutiny'. I suspect that 'mutiny', like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (and yes, I do have a dictionary, so don't bother, anyone).

But since this repeal takes away the rights of labour unions, it also takes away the protection that would help develop a more reasonable sort of armed force. It leaves unprotected those workers who organise collectively for industrial purposes. It opens the way for all manner of abuses.

That's why I'm proud to have voted against it, and urge any who haven't yet done so to reconsider.

In the words of somebody so famous I've forgotten their name, "It's never too late until it's too late."

But they might say, "We don't pour until we're certain nobody's still fiddling around with the forme. Saw a bloke caught in a concrete pour once. Not pretty."And this applies to a warzone... how? "Gee, there's guys over there shooting. I think I'd be safer in Hoboken."

Now I think that sort of 'mutiny' is a good thing, and I don't see why any reasonable human beings should give up the right to it just because they're in uniform.Because they sign away those rights. They know the risks going into it.

I suspect that 'mutiny', like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (and yes, I do have a dictionary, so don't bother, anyone).Perhaps swap it for a legal dictionary. Mutany is clearly defined.

But since this repeal takes away the rights of labour unions, it also takes away the protection that would help develop a more reasonable sort of armed force.Armed forces have existed for thousands of years without union "protection". A soldier is not a miner; what applies to the latter doesn't necessarily apply to the former.

It leaves unprotected those workers who organise collectively for industrial purposes. It opens the way for all manner of abuses.In most modern societies, unions serve little purpose other than syphoning of funds from members and making it impossible to fire the incompitent.

In the words of somebody so famous I've forgotten their name, "It's never too late until it's too late."I believe you're thinking of baseball great Lawrence "Yogi" Berra, who said "The game isn't over until it's over," which is commonly repeated as: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Location: Gathering Cathedral, Endopolis, Sierra Noche

I do agree with Hack. This is not effecting what it specifies it shall. If we have the armed forces strong enough to hold our own, we needn't worry ourselves about labour unions. But when you saw the mutiny is good for my armed forces I disagree! (Begins to yell) I DON'T WANT THESE CRYIN' WUSSES TO WALK UP TO MY HEAD GENERAL AND EITHER SHOOT HIM OR SAY, "umm.....sir, would you be the kindest dove and let us tie you up and burn you at the stake?" AND DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE MY ARMIES TOP O' THE LINE FELLAS, AND NUTHINS' GONNA BRING IT DOWN!

Your's Sincerely,
Nova Lorelei, Minister of Law, Dictator

Asembled speakers to the United Nations,

Today I am a proud man. A better man. A happy man. A man not so much inclined to burn down the United Nations Headquarters as some have alledged I was in the past. This esteemed body has recently made key steps on the road of reforming this body from an agent of communist agitation and Freedom-hatred towards a genuine body of international contemplation and collective action.

The repeal of the Law of the Seas resolution has removed the original reason why the Dutch Democratic Republic withdrew from the United Nations. Now, another resolution which has provoked major opposition amongst the Knootian Government and People can be stricken from the record.

The repeal of the Rights of Labor Unions also removes a stain on the record of this esteemed body, for it is a resolution which helped percipitate a Global Recession – first and foremost amongst UN member states – by interfering crudely in the fine and balanced national systems of labour relations in member states.

The resolution now being repealed forced the Dutch Democratic Republic to redefine its conception of union, creating the "Workers Rights Organisation" or WRO which was the partner on the national level in our efficient and very Knootoss-specific system of labour relations management. I am glad to announce that, with the demise of this resolution by repeal, this odd political construct can also dissapear.

Let me be clear on this - Knootoss supports labour relations and worker representation. We even allow members of the Knootian Defence Force to engage, under certain conditions, in industrial action. Whilst we have been scorned for this by some of our military partners we believe in the power of sentient rights. However, we do not believe in resolutions that protect socialist institutions over the common interest.

My cynical working theory about the inner workings of this body, if you will allow me a small digression, stems from the fact that the delegates of the assembled nations here have often chosen to overturn resolutions they have approved earlier. This leads me to believe that many of the more fluffily-inclined delegates are unaware of the meaning of the word "repeal" and treat them as resolutions in their own right, chosing to simply scan the texts of the resolutions or repeals offered to them by this General Assembly and approving them based on the presence of certain key words. These words include, for example, "rights", "fairness", "development" and "social justice". Fortunately, this repeal offers plenty of these words and it endorses social justice for workers to boot!

Finally, a few words on how to vote. I realise that the resolution poll closes today but for the last minute voters I would still like to offer a few words of wisdom.

The resolution that is now being repealed puts a moderate face on extremist intentions. It was prepared by a virulently anticapitalist alliance. The authors, from the Anarchist Federation of Free Soviets, have collaborated with a clique of communist, anarchist and anticapitalist authors to provide for a resolution that served their agenda and they have succeeded. “Rights of Labour Unions” promotes a far-left view on labour relations, forcing government interventions in the private sector onto member nations and breaking up disputes by having “unbiased” mediators appointed in a conflict. This means that unions are encouraged to have conflicts last over 60 days and forcing employers to cave in even to unreasonable demands by unions. In the long term, this can destabilise national economies and cause inflation and loss of competitiveness.

I encourage all who have not done so yet to vote for this repeal and restore some sense to the debate about Labour Relations.

Thank you.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

*snip*

In most modern societies, unions serve little purpose other than syphoning of funds from members and making it impossible to fire the incompitent.

*snip*


OOC: Quoted for truth! :cool:

I am following the lead of my UN delegate in voting against this resolution. The right of workers to form unions for the purpose of collective bargaining is one of the pillars of any truly representative state. Repealing this resolution would raise alarms amongst the free peoples of the world.

I do understand the reasoning behind the repeal; specifically, the provision of the original resolution that does not limit the right to organize to certain areas. It is our belief that there exists no worker within the state of Dryroot, or indeed, the world, who has given up the right for his interests to be represented.

Any law or resolution is open to interpretation by local governments. I urge those governments that object to the original resolution to reconsider and come to an understanding of how to balance the larger interests of the state with the more narrow interests of their citizens while abiding by the evident will of these United Nations in passing the original resolution.

Tarena Schlosschild
Prime Minister
Democratic Republic of Dryroot
DDR

What about the evident will of these United Nations in repealing the resolution? The repeal is winning rather handily.

I believe you're thinking of baseball great Lawrence "Yogi" Berra, who said "The game isn't over until it's over," which is commonly repeated as: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Thank you, sir. All I know about baseball is that it's a bit like rounders, so I appreciate any enlightenment on the subject.

As to 'mutiny', I know there are legal definitions. What I'm getting at is that what some might call mutiny, others might call sense. Or even courage. Depends where you're standing. Pity that the term 'mutiny' can lead to someone standing in front of a firing-squad.

Several speakers are apparently so comfortably situated that they can endorse the privileged view that unions serve little purpose. Regrettably, however, unions are still needed down among the powerless. I say 'regrettably' because it is regrettable that humans are so ready to exploit each other; in call centres, in textile sweatshops, in the mines, in the service industries (well, there's always another kid along who'll put up with the occasional double shift, split shift, boiling cooking-fat burn) ... in education, where, without active unions, students who cannot afford private education would be even more disadvantaged; in hospitals, where budget-happy administrators play on the determination of nurses and doctors to do all they can for patients, despite the lack of resources ... in any job where there's bullying, or gender-based, religious or racial discrimination ... Sure, there're laws against such things. But the law's up in the court-room, with all the expensive lawyers and the special words that help the boss weasel out of his obligations. The union's the one that's standing there in front of you, taking the flak, lining up your mates beside you and giving all of you the money and the knowledge to tell the bastards to back off.

Mr Koopman, I can understand your indignation at the shocking suggestion that governments might intervene in the private sector; you might consider that if the private sector behaved less appallingly such interventions might not be as necessary. Of course, even if employers and unions behaved like angels governments would still intervene, pushed into it by producers who want protection from competition or consumers who want cheaper goods.

I should add, unbiased mediators are not as rare in the industrial scene as your quotation marks might suggest. Much depends on the method of their appointment (preferably, not patronage).

How the existing resolution "encouraged' unions to have disputes extend for 60 days I don't know. Surviving without an income for 60 days is no picnic for someone who has to live from payday to payday. Strange kind of communists the writers must have been, if they wanted fellow workers to suffer longer than they had to. Generally, the employers are the ones who would find it easier to tough it out for that length of time -- factories don't get hungry the way families do.

Fortunately, the repeal doesn't actively forbid unions, so if it passes many UN nations will simply continue with their equitable, national systems of industrial relations. It is unfortunate that those nations where the existing resolution is needed most are precisely the ones that will make their citizens suffer most if the repeal succeeds.

Oh, just in case it isn't clear to anyone: Lloegeyr is AGAINST the repeal.

Lata Chakrabarti, Ecopoeia's newly elected Speaker to the UN, had thusfar maintained a stoic - if pained - silence during the debate. It was only her second day in her new post and already she was witness to a bitter blow for workers' rights and an unsettling toy-throwing tendency in her Deputy. Nevertheless, she'd resisted the urge to enter the fray, determined for now to observe and better know her fellow delegates.

Then Aram Koopman stood to speak. The Knootian representative's indulgent speech, laced with slanders and hyperbole, struck at her patient quietude with brutal blows. That sneering, arrogant smirk. The patent untruths. The dressing of worker exploitation in the clothes of 'social justice'.

Her blood boiled but, somehow, she maintained her control over the seething currents of her rage and withstood the ignominy of defeat.

Later, as she and Vergniaud discussed the day's events - her Deputy suitably chastened after she admonished him for being so derelict in his duties - the Knootian's smile returned in her mind, an unpleasant image summing up a terrible day. She fixed Vergniaud with a steely gaze.

"Koopman. I'm going to wipe the smile off that fucker's face. Mark my words."

Vergniaud found himself feeling a quite unexpected warmth for the departed Varia Yefremova.

Automatic best case of abstaination from me, but I think I'll actually be voting against




I think I will have to agree with you on this one. Limiting the rights of labor unions is the same thing as giving CEO's a raise for choosing the charcoal colored suit.

*Sen. Sulla just sits at his desk with his feet up reading the speeches on Ronald Reagan, and grinning evilly, and occasionally chuckling to himself..*

OOC: If I don't show up to work, I deserve to lose my job.

Except when you're on strike for better employment conditions. Such as, but not limited to, for example, a wage that's actually enough to rent a house and buy food. Or a safer workplace.

If I don't show up to work, it could be illness. Do I deserve to loose my job? Do I deserve to loose my job because I happen to be a woman and pregnant? I think you don't, and I think you need unions to prevent people from loosing their job too easily. Not so no-one can be fired anymore, but for balance - employer's needs versus employee's needs.

Has anyone else noticed that no matter what the resolution is, whatever the left-leaning view is, that is always what is passed?

I'm pretty sure my view is leaning left. Might be the building though. Has anyone checked the structural soundness recently?

I'm pretty sure my view is leaning left. Might be the building though. Has anyone checked the structural soundness recently?

There's a slight issue with the foundation, caused earlier today when a representative from Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (CPESL) was here to install a "telephone entertainment system" for the offices of the Fonzolandian delegation. It will be corrected, though, by close of business today. CPESL has apologised for the inconvenience and appreciates your understanding and patience while the problem is corrected.

The resolution Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions" was passed 8,615 votes to 5,154.

The people of Cluichstan applaud the repeal and thank the author and those who supported it.

I am following the lead of my UN delegate in voting against this resolution. The right of workers to form unions for the purpose of collective bargaining is one of the pillars of any truly representative state. Repealing this resolution would raise alarms amongst the free peoples of the world.

Please remember that states who want to hold membership in the NSUN are not required to be "truly representative"...
(although St Edmund, despite supporting this repeal, is...)

There's a slight issue with the foundation, caused earlier today when a representative from Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (CPESL) was here to install a "telephone entertainment system" for the offices of the Fonzolandian delegation. It will be corrected, though, by close of business today. CPESL has apologised for the inconvenience and appreciates your understanding and patience while the problem is corrected.

We sincerely hope the employee in charge of correcting the structural problem is not the unfortunate individual who accidentally fell through the 21st floor window after trying to bug our office phone, detonating his explosive personal belongings midair. We believe the problem might take a few more days to correct. The offices in the 6th and 7th floor seem to be the most damaged, though apparently the foundations were shaken as well.

Condolences to the grieving family.

We sincerely hope the employee in charge of correcting the structural problem is not the unfortunate individual who accidentally fell through the 21st floor window after trying to bug our office phone, detonating his explosive personal belongings midair. We believe the problem might take a few more days to correct. The offices in the 6th and 7th floor seem to be the most damaged, though apparently the foundations were shaken as well.

Condolences to the grieving family.

No, that was not a CPESL representative. We have no knowledge of that individual whatsoever. Rest assured that the structural problem with be corrected soon. I've been told that our team of combat -- I mean, civil -- engineers are very close to having it fixed.

No, that was not a CPESL representative. We have no knowledge of that individual whatsoever. Rest assured that the structural problem with be corrected soon. I've been told that our team of combat -- I mean, civil -- engineers are very close to having it fixed.

You might want to inform your engineering team that suspicious accidents frequently happen around the 21st floor. Early implementation of the Workplace Safety Act within CPESL would be wise.

You might want to inform your engineering team that suspicious accidents frequently happen around the 21st floor. Early implementation of the Workplace Safety Act within CPESL would be wise.

That would be up to the CPESL, as it's a private company. Besides, they're working on the foundation and have no reason to be on the 21st floor.

And FYI: the company also issued an important press release (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Valiant_States/index.php?showtopic=7) today.

I'm pretty sure my view is leaning left. Might be the building though. Has anyone checked the structural soundness recently?

Shaddup.

Shaddup.

Ah, so you're the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People...

“I would like to congratulate the author of this repeal for its passing. This repeal is a victory for Freedom and a striking blow against the communist agitator. I would like to express my sincere hope that the issue of Labour Relation will henceforth rightfully be considered a matter of domestic economy, notwithstanding the protection of sentient rights and the right to assembly.

To the representative from Lloegeyr - whose name I don’t recall - I can only say… I agree with you!

Knootoss is at the forefront of the fight for civil liberties in the United Nations and in the world.

Knootoss believes in sincere international proposals to promote social justice though sustainable economic development.

Knootoss rejects economic protectionism and exploitation.”

(A banner is unfurled at the cue of a slick corporate jingle from a brought-in radio)

http://knootoss.vogels.nu/images/socialjustice.png

"Thank you."

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

Time to educate another newbie, resolutions are not always passed. While admittedly every resolution that has come up for vote so far this year has passed, not all resolutions that come up for vote pass. Bear in mind that the game only tracks those that do pass, if you want to see the complete history of UN resolutions you should check out this link. http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

By the way, I am not a newbie, this nation is just a new one I made a couple of days ago.

And the only resolution I've seen rejected was one to ban nuclear arms, although between then and now I've probably missed quite a few rejected resolutions.

So anyways, I retract my earlier statement, and will probably never post here again.

*snip*

So anyways, I retract my earlier statement, and will probably never post here again.

Ah, the Great Cluich blesses us once again!

Ah, the Great Cluich blesses us once again!
Moltan Bausch shakes his head. 'Ah, when would the young one learn...'

"Too slow, my friend, too slow."

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg

Nyaha!

Ah, but you see, Moltan, I usually nab the hot secretary. In this case, given the loutish behaviour of the representative of W&B, I doubt there's one to be had.

goodness, I shall look forward to shooting the strikers...

By the way, I am not a newbie, this nation is just a new one I made a couple of days ago. In that case I retract the newbie comment.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm pretty sure my view is leaning left. Might be the building though. Has anyone checked the structural soundness recently?
Mrs. Lane I assure you that the building is as structurally sound today as it was the day it opened.

Of course we did go with the lowest bidding contracter and had them use sub-standard materials but that's beside the point.

William Smithers
Senior VP, UN Building Management