NationStates Jolt Archive

(changes since first draft in italics)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Unions,

FURTHER CONVINCED that Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Unions for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike, independent arbitration is provided whose decision shall be carried out by all parties in the conflict,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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; nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities in being hired, work assignment, promotion and trainings regardless of Union-membership,

8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

The definition of a "worker" might help

I'm wondering if where you have said "employer", you actually mean "employee". The employer is generally the boss and the employee works for him/her. Also in clause 6, the word "based" doesn't really make any sense, unless I"m reading it wrong. That sentence sounds fine without it however.

Other than that, I can't see any other problems with this on first reading and approve %100. The recently repealed resolution was an important one and needs replacing.

Best of luck with this proposal, and if I get the delegateship I'm chasing right now, I'll be more than happy to endorse it when you submit it.

Clause 2 has an amusing typo. ;)

Clause 2 has an amusing typo. ;)

yeah, thanks. why didn't the dutch conquer the world.. :(

Anyway, updated.

OOC: I'd remove the 'shocked' statement; I'm not a fan of hyperbole in proposals. More later (I've posted this draft in the ACA).

OOC: I'd remove the 'shocked' statement; I'm not a fan of hyperbole in proposals. More later (I've posted this draft in the ACA).
Agreed. Although I like hyperbole in proposals, I don't think you should be putting 'shocked' at a decision the UN majority agreed with.

Also: I would use 'labor' not 'labour'.

Agreed. Although I like hyperbole in proposals, I don't think you should be putting 'shocked' at a decision the UN majority agreed with.

Also: I would use 'labor' not 'labour'.
I wouldn't, but that's no surprise.

I wouldn't, but that's no surprise.
OOC: I'm British too, and not a fan of Americanization of spelling, but I just think with the majority a) supporting a repeal and b) being American, it's not the sort of thing to play around with.

Also: I would like a provision for us to ban General Strikes. They don't have to be prohibited by the proposal, but it should remain a sovereign right.

OOC: I'm British too, and not a fan of Americanization of spelling, but I just think with the majority a) supporting a repeal and b) being American, it's not the sort of thing to play around with.
Oh yeah, I get where you're coming from.

The government of St Edmund will oppose this proposal unless _
[1] Clause 2 is altered to ban both "wildcat" strikes and "secondary" strike action;
[2] Clause 3, subclause 'a' is altered to say just "Military personnel" rather than "Militairy personnel in a nation at war";
[3] Clause 3 is given a subclause 'd' providing an exemption to that right for any employees who have agreed to legally-binding no-strike agreements;
and
[4] National governments are allowed to set minimum standards of democracy that unions' constitutions must meet.

As could probably have been predicted, the people of Cluichstan stand firmly and vehemently against this proposal.

The government of St Edmund will oppose this proposal unless _
[1] Clause 2 is altered to ban both "wildcat" strikes and "secondary" strike action;
[2] Clause 3, subclause 'a' is altered to say just "Military personnel" rather than "Militairy personnel in a nation at war";
[3] Clause 3 is given a subclause 'd' providing an exemption to that right for any employees who have agreed to legally-binding no-strike agreements;
and
[4] National governments are allowed to set minimum standards of democracy that unions' constitutions must meet.
I understand (though don't agree with) your other requirements, but why on earth would you insist on the amendments to clause 2? There's no need to ban them in all nations; I assume you mean that you'd like to see nations allowed the right to ban them is they see fit?

Actually, upon further reflection, the people of Cluichstan will simply obstain, as we have already found our loophole.

The government of St Edmund will oppose this proposal unless _
[1] Clause 2 is altered to ban both "wildcat" strikes and "secondary" strike action;
[2] Clause 3, subclause 'a' is altered to say just "Military personnel" rather than "Militairy personnel in a nation at war";
[3] Clause 3 is given a subclause 'd' providing an exemption to that right for any employees who have agreed to legally-binding no-strike agreements;
and
[4] National governments are allowed to set minimum standards of democracy that unions' constitutions must meet.

Agree with all four, especially the last one, although I think [1] should be something leavable to national governments. Also, make it clear that governments can allow the jobs listed in clause 3 to have the same rights as they so wish.

Also, I would prefer "trades unions" over labour/labor unions, simply because it is transatlantic (but note the the plural of trade union is not trade unions, but trades unions).

Also, don't limit it to employees. There are such things as employers unions...

Also, I would prefer "trades unions" over labour/labor unions, simply because it is transatlantic (but note the the plural of trade union is not trade unions, but trades unions).

Uh? I believe both "trades union" and "trade union" are correct and mean the same thing, but you create the plural of either by attaching an "s" to the word union.

I understand (though don't agree with) your other requirements, but why on earth would you insist on the amendments to clause 2? There's no need to ban them in all nations; I assume you mean that you'd like to see nations allowed the right to ban them is they see fit?

Oops! Yes, that's right... I was typing in a hurry, due to only having a fairly short tea-break in which to do so.

Oh, and I'd also like the right to extend the ban on strike action during wartime to cover the merchant navy, ordnance factory workers, & anybody else whose services are deemed essential to the war effort, too...

Actually, upon further reflection, the people of Cluichstan will simply obstain, as we have already found our loophole.

I wonder whether it's the same lovely one that I've just spotted: Will send you a telegram to check about this...

I wonder whether it's the same lovely one that I've just spotted: Will send you a telegram to check about this...

We eagerly await your missive. ;)

OH yeah...let us all become Teamsters.:rolleyes: Why in Sam Hill can y'all not let each individual nation decide these things for themselves?
Happt Trails,
Texas Jack Funk
Deputy UN Ambassador,
Palentine UN Office

I wonder whether it's the same lovely one that I've just spotted: Will send you a telegram to check about this...

I have replied. Let's continue this telegram discussion...

The Commonalitarianism opposes this legislation because many of our forms of business entities represent direct business ownership.

Marianis Industries-- RUS, Registered Union Syndicate requires union membership because the union directly owns the enterprises involved. To be an owner or work in the company you must be a union member. Section six is problematic because of this.

Where the union directly owns the company, a regulation that the government cannot interfere is at best problematic.

Some of our business entities were formed as cooperatives as well. Both RUS and Cooperatives wages are determined by a percentage of profits, not a fixed wage.

Also our largest manufacturer Dynamic Motors, PPC-- Public Private Consortium is directly involved with the government. Saying you cannot interfere with a union that is part of a mixed form of ownership is problematic at best.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike for the purpose of getting a fair wage and improvement of working conditions,

Not sure if this is the loophole or not, it probably isn't, but I have picked something up in this clause. I've put my changes to it up in bold.

As written, it could be read as only applying to employees of the UN itself.

I think it is profoundly undemocratic to expect the United Nations General Assembly to be shocked about its earlier actions. "Recognising" would be a better clause; accepting the result and thinking about how to move forward.

I also disagree that Labour Unions are the "best" means of worker representations. The means of worker representation within the United Nations are diverse, and the clause endorsing unions as the best means ought to be scrapped therefore. The Right to form a Labour Union should not depend on the utility of unions anyway, but on the intrinsic human right to do so.

I move the clause claiming that unions will improve working conditions also be removed on grounds of being a baseless assertion that has no place in a UN resolution.

Clause two, ironically, is too restrictive in our opinion. National laws should determine valid reasons for a strike, but the two reasons mentioned could be worded as the minimum reasons. As preventing a deterioration of working conditions could also be a reason to strike I move the resolution be reworded so as not to provide a direction.

Clause three contains too much micromanagement, and a general cause of "essential personnel" as was used in the original resolution should do. Especially the military clause is hollow, as industrial action can -for example- still hurt a mobilisation during periods of increased tension with the absence of war.

Clause five is dangerous, and ought to be scrapped. Unions ought to be afforded the same protections given to other organisations in various UN resolutions. Normal government proceedings applicable to other organisations should likewise apply to unions.

~Aram Koopman

The government of St Edmund will oppose this proposal unless _
[1] Clause 2 is altered to ban both "wildcat" strikes and "secondary" strike action;
(...)
[4] National governments are allowed to set minimum standards of democracy that unions' constitutions must meet.
The Government of Tol Elys agrees to this; also, we believe that labor unions should certainly not have unlimited powers even within these bounds. Having these unions is all very well and good, but we have no desire whatsoever to turn our country into a second France.

[signed]
G.F. von Gühl-Bachmann
State Secretary of Labour

Agreed. Although I like hyperbole in proposals, I don't think you should be putting 'shocked' at a decision the UN majority agreed with.

Also: I would use 'labor' not 'labour'.

"Disappointed" perhaps?

I prefer "labour", it looks better. Let's keep the U in labour!

Also: I would like a provision for us to ban General Strikes. They don't have to be prohibited by the proposal, but it should remain a sovereign right.

I think that that can be left to each nation through clause 7, respecting the national law, and I can change it so it then says "that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution, as long as a just balance between employer's and employee's rights is ensured."

I won't ban general strikes in this resolution. If there's a general strike, something is probably wrong in a major way, and you will need to solve the root cause, not a symptom.

The government of St Edmund will oppose this proposal unless _
[1] Clause 2 is altered to ban both "wildcat" strikes and "secondary" strike action;
[2] Clause 3, subclause 'a' is altered to say just "Military personnel" rather than "Militairy personnel in a nation at war";
[3] Clause 3 is given a subclause 'd' providing an exemption to that right for any employees who have agreed to legally-binding no-strike agreements;
and
[4] National governments are allowed to set minimum standards of democracy that unions' constitutions must meet.

1. I can do something about wildcat strikes, I don't think secondary strikes should be exempted. For one thing, it'll take too long to define and explain.
2. No. In peacetime, millitairy personnel isn't as vital as during wartime, and they can be given more liberties. Soldiers should have the same right to proper wages and working conditions as civilians.
3. No. In fact, I am now rather tempted to include something forbidding no-strike-agreements.
4. There is no reason why governments should bother themselves about the democratic standards of any organization, as long as people are free to join and leave as they wish. If people prefer a dictatorially led union, then let them be sheep. They are free to set up their own more democratic union if they want to.

Also, I would prefer "trades unions" over labour/labor unions, simply because it is transatlantic

I don't object to this, and haven't seen others objecting.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations

Will change. Thanks!

I also disagree that Labour Unions are the "best" means of worker representations. The means of worker representation within the United Nations are diverse, and the clause endorsing unions as the best means ought to be scrapped therefore. The Right to form a Labour Union should not depend on the utility of unions anyway, but on the intrinsic human right to do so.

I can understand that, but I think the most practical way to represent workers is by an organisation which can do that, can organise strikes, etc, and that's commonly a union. It becomes too vague if you don't focus on unions.

Clause two, ironically, is too restrictive in our opinion.

I'll make them a minimum.

Clause three contains too much micromanagement, and a general cause of "essential personnel" as was used in the original resolution should do. Especially the military clause is hollow, as industrial action can -for example- still hurt a mobilisation during periods of increased tension with the absence of war.

It's a bit of necessary micromanagement as it may take away concerns some had. "Essential personnel" is too vague. Generally, if people go on strike, something is wrong. Solve that instead of limiting who can go on strike.

Clause five is dangerous, and ought to be scrapped. Unions ought to be afforded the same protections given to other organisations in various UN resolutions. Normal government proceedings applicable to other organisations should likewise apply to unions.

I will use your last point, but don't consider it dangerous. The resolution says that unions have to follow the law, like other organisations. I don't want a government to have more influence than absolutely necessary on unions.

If you are going to do this damned silly thing, do not do it in this damned silly way.

Something like "RECALLING that the right of association was recognized in earlier resolutions, BELIEVING that this right may only be restricted in the interest of public order" would be preferable to a fluffy endorsement of unions.

There are, furthermore, all sorts of workers outside the categories mentioned which may prove essential, for example the personnel of utilities plants. Electricity, gas and clean drinking water are pretty damn essential for a civilised country. Long-term strikes in waste disposal can equally cripple a country and lead to widespread diseases. There are more such categories which, depending on the society, may prove essential and no single list can cover it. The Dutch Democratic Republic does not advocate taking away the right to industrial action completely for these groups, but tailor-made national legislation is required.

~Aram Koopman

There are, furthermore, all sorts of workers outside the categories mentioned which may prove essential, for example the personnel of utilities plants. Electricity, gas and clean drinking water are pretty damn essential for a civilised country. Long-term strikes in waste disposal can equally cripple a country and lead to widespread diseases. There are more such categories which, depending on the society, may prove essential and no single list can cover it. The Dutch Democratic Republic does not advocate taking away the right to industrial action completely for these groups, but tailor-made national legislation is required.

Which might lead to taking away their right to strike. Call me silly, but I think before people go "but that allows essential service X to go on strike!" they should be thinking why these people go on strike. Most likely because they don't earn what they should, or have to work in conditions they shouldn't. I've added a bit about the end justifying the means and that's enough. If you don't want essential service X to go on strike, treat them well. But I don't want to introduce the loophole where idiot nations can call everything "essential" and ignore this resolution.

In that case workers in essental services can basically blackmail the government if this is passed. I'll take note of Cluichistans loophole and spread the word when it does pass. Thatcherism, instead of reasonable restrictions, will be the only answer to a dispute on essential services. Thank you, Groot Gouda, for doing the workers such a disservice.

~Aram Koopman

Just a though, I don’t know yet if it will be possible to write it or not, but I think it may be interesting to try.

What about “minimum service”, when the government allows the right to strike, while in the same time asking for “a minimum service” to be guaranteed, for such essential everyday areas as Knootian East Indies mentioned: Electricity ,Water, public transportation.

... waste disposal, institutions of public sanitation, etc.

In that case workers in essental services can basically blackmail the government if this is passed. I'll take note of Cluichistans loophole and spread the word when it does pass. Thatcherism, instead of reasonable restrictions, will be the only answer to a dispute on essential services. Thank you, Groot Gouda, for doing the workers such a disservice.

I would be doing them a disservice by adding the loophole that would limit their right to go on strike. Blackmailing the government? I don't think that's possible. Why don't non-essential workers constantly try to blackmail their employers then?

OOC: I'm not an expert on these laws, but I'd appreciate an example of our RL nation where this blackmailing has occured, or what the limitations are on striking for certain sectors.

I would be doing them a disservice by adding the loophole that would limit their right to go on strike. Blackmailing the government? I don't think that's possible. Why don't non-essential workers constantly try to blackmail their employers then?

OOC: I'm not an expert on these laws, but I'd appreciate an example of our RL nation where this blackmailing has occured, or what the limitations are on striking for certain sectors.

Employees in essantial servives know their power is far greater than other sectors if they have a blanket right to go to strike. When these employees go to strike their actions has consequences on millions people.

A certain european nation for example has a week public transportation strike every 2 years, if not every year, even if these Employees' revenue and conditions are absolutly not below national average.

My move is not here to oppose your draft, as I was against the repeal, but I really think the concept of “minimum service” is interesting for some sectors.

I agree to add in this list: waste disposal, institutions of public sanitation

In that case workers in essental services can basically blackmail the government if this is passed. I'll take note of Cluichistans loophole and spread the word when it does pass.
*snip*

*mischievous snicker*

OOC: I'm not an expert on these laws, but I'd appreciate an example of our RL nation where this blackmailing has occured


OOC: Britain during the 1970s, pre-Thatcher, when unions whose members were involved in providing the country's electricity deliberately disrupted supplies in order to gain extra leverage...

2. No. In peacetime, millitairy personnel isn't as vital as during wartime, and they can be given more liberties. Soldiers should have the same right to proper wages and working conditions as civilians.


The existance of unions within the armed forces, especially ones with the right to strike over any petty grievance than any of their shop stewards might claim existed, would have a corrosive effect on discipline: The government of St Edmund reiterates its opposition to the legalisation of any such unions.

(OOC: You're from the Netherlands, yes? Your country's armed forces might [i]seem to be managing alright despite being unionised, but when was the last time that they actually achieved anything significant of a military nature?)

OOC: Knootoss. Not Knootian East Indies please. *points at sig*

Also, St. Edmund, I resent that comment being Dutch as well. The unionised military has accomplished some admirable feats around the world. It also has nothing to do with the subject and it is therefore a silly attack.

However, I do agree that there are times when a military needs to be prepared even when war has not explicitly been declared.

Also, St. Edmund, I resent that comment being Dutch as well. The unionised military has accomplished some admirable feats around the world. It also has nothing to do with the subject and it is therefore a silly attack.

They have? No insult was intended, but those feats don't seem to have been mentioned in the British press...

They have? No insult was intended, but those feats don't seem to have been mentioned in the British press...
OOC: Well, there's a surprise... most of the press is right-wing and not internationalist, while the Grauniad and Independent are woolly centre-left and, while rather more internationalist, are not inclined to report on military successes.

They have? No insult was intended, but those feats don't seem to have been mentioned in the British press...They are in Afghanistan right now. That's all I have to say on the subject.

OOC: The Dutch Navy sent a frigate to assist with relief efforts after hurricane Katrina. I am very appreciative of that.

Two points of advice on the replacement.
1. Take your time and get it right. It's not the end of the world if it takes a couple of extra weeks to draft a strong (and loophole-free) replacement.
2. I encourage all parties who are working on a replacement to cooperate and share ideas. This will only improve the final result.

OOC: When NSers derride our military I always bring out this little gem... I can mention the countless wars we've fought in as well, and the peace missions we've been on but this is against the Amerikkan foe:


The Author: Roger Thompson is Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.
[...]
Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

:D

[/offtopic]

How about this:

3. EXEMPTS from the aforementioned right:
a. Military personnel in a nation at war or mobilising for war;
b. Strikes not authorized by unions;
c. Strikes which endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

While it doesn't exclude whole job sectors, it does leave wiggle room for nations.

Better, but "life-threatening" is a bit limited in my opinion. Garbage disposal is not immediately life-threatening. The same goes for a lack of police. A better litmus test ought to be used.

Better, but "life-threatening" is a bit limited in my opinion. Garbage disposal is not immediately life-threatening.

Try telling the elderly and the children, who are more susceptible to disease, that piles of rotting garbage piling up in the streets isn't life-threatening. Think of the children! :p

The International Worker Ownership Initiative passed by the Citizens Assembly of the Commonalitarianism gives workers the right to:

1) Unions in private business have the right to buy out closed plants if they have sufficient funds.

2) When the Citizens Assemblies deems it appropriate to privatize certain industries, member unions have the right to join in the bidding process to acquire pieces of such industry.

Note: Recently, the cheese industry was privatized. The Sharp Cheddar Cooperative was formed by a partial buyout by the Union of Cheddar Workers.

We would like to extend these rights to United Nations members.

The International Worker Ownership Initiative passed by the Citizens Assembly of the Commonalitarianism gives workers the right to:

1) Unions in private business have the right to buy out closed plants if they have sufficient funds.

2) When the Citizens Assemblies deems it appropriate to privatize certain industries, member unions have the right to join in the bidding process to acquire pieces of such industry.

Note: Recently, the cheese industry was privatized. The Sharp Cheddar Cooperative was formed by a partial buyout by the Union of Cheddar Workers.

We would like to extend these rights to United Nations members.


Do you mean that you'd like to give other UN member nations the same rights in those respects [within your own economy] as your unions, or that you'd like other UN member nations to give their unions those rights within their economies?

Uh? I believe both "trades union" and "trade union" are correct and mean the same thing, but you create the plural of either by attaching an "s" to the word union.

They're not quite, it's one of those odd plurals, like Secretaries-General. Trade Unions would be several unions representing a single trade. Trades Unions would be several unions representing different trades, as both are pluralised. Thus, a list of trade unions would be:

The National Cobdenian Merchant Sailors Union
The Merchant Seamans Union of Cobdenia
The International Federation of Merchant Seamen
The Cobdenian Organisation for the Rights of Merchant Seamen

A list of trades unions would be

The Merchant Seamen's Union of Cobdenia
The National Union of Sex Workers
The Teamsters' Union of Port Sir Richard
The Union of Cobdenian Fireman


With this, therefore, you want trades unions, otherwise you could limit unions to just those that represent a single trade...
[/grammar Nazi]

They're not quite, it's one of those odd plurals, like Secretaries-General. Trade Unions would be several unions representing a single trade. Trades Unions would be several unions representing different trades, as both are pluralised. Thus, a list of trade unions would be:

The National Cobdenian Merchant Sailors Union
The Merchant Seamans Union of Cobdenia
The International Federation of Merchant Seamen
The Cobdenian Organisation for the Rights of Merchant Seamen

A list of trades unions would be

The Merchant Seamen's Union of Cobdenia
The National Union of Sex Workers
The Teamsters' Union of Port Sir Richard
The Union of Cobdenian Fireman


With this, therefore, you want trades unions, otherwise you could limit unions to just those that represent a single trade...
[/grammar Nazi]

Hmmm... do you have a source to back that up? I have always seen the plural "trade unions" used in any circumstances.

The wikipedia aricle on "trade union" uses "trades unions" as the plural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

Also, the main conference of unions is called the Trades Unions Congress..

http://www.tuc.org.uk/

EDIT: I think a lot of people say "trade unions" because it's easier to pronounce, and so it has moved into common usage, despite being incorrect

Better, but "life-threatening" is a bit limited in my opinion. Garbage disposal is not immediately life-threatening. The same goes for a lack of police. A better litmus test ought to be used.

And if it's not immediately life-threatening, then why should those people be prevented from going on strike? If they won't, how can they ever put force behind their arguments like other workers can? You fear blackmailing of the government, I fear blackmailing of workers. If you work as a garbage collector, and your employer refuses to pay a higher wage, what do you do? It's not as if there's a whole load of other unskilled jobs available for you.

To take the garbage disposal people as example: they can go on strike, up to a point where a judge can put a stop because the lack of garbage collecting becomes life-threatening. They have made their point though, and have shown how valuable they are. Which could mean they get treated accordingly. That's fair.

I have already made changes that softened the resolution. I am not willing to take that any further unless people can convince me that for those "essential services" alternatives exist to force better conditions, better wages, etc from employers. And note that I have made a lot of changes to the draft on page 1.

The International Worker Ownership Initiative passed by the Citizens Assembly of the Commonalitarianism gives workers the right to:

1) Unions in private business have the right to buy out closed plants if they have sufficient funds.

2) When the Citizens Assemblies deems it appropriate to privatize certain industries, member unions have the right to join in the bidding process to acquire pieces of such industry.

Note: Recently, the cheese industry was privatized. The Sharp Cheddar Cooperative was formed by a partial buyout by the Union of Cheddar Workers.

We would like to extend these rights to United Nations members.

I wouldn't. Or rather, I am not going to mention them, so you can still implement those rules and other nations can decide for themselves. Adding things like this is only a small step from achieving world piece through a union resolution with added microremittances.

Those changes to the draft were badly needed. However I am happy to inform you that the Dutch Democratic Republic has, at this point, changed its position from one of virulent opposition to one of sceptic consideration of its relative merits.

I, too, would like a 'world piece'.

~Aram Koopman

b. Strikes not authorized by unions;

Please, I suppose there is a reason for that, but I just don't get it, thanks if you can help me to understand that.
My concern is for workers in economically developping nations for example, where unions are more rare and workers may not have the easy possibility to join a union (even if they are legal, unions need some people to create them at first place)

c. Strikes which endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

I would favour an approach referencing also to the need of basic public services, as electricity and public transportation, where strikes may not endanger life of citizen before long but stop millions people life who are not related.

Only two things would sway me towards the for side:
1) A specific reference to allowing governments to impose minimum democratic standards
2) Trades Unions

The wikipedia aricle on "trade union" uses "trades unions" as the plural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

Not once, sorry.

Also, the main conference of unions is called the Trades Unions Congress..

http://www.tuc.org.uk/

True. It doesn't contradict my point of them being synonyms.

EDIT: I think a lot of people say "trade unions" because it's easier to pronounce, and so it has moved into common usage, despite being incorrect

Being a grammar nazi myself, I will not back down. ;) Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trades+union) is my reference.

That's only the singular; trades union and trade union are synonyms. Trades Unions and trade unions aren't

A-ha! Brewer's Book of Phrase and Fable:

"It is common in informal speech to pluralize the last word in the usual way and not the first, but in edited prose, the form trades unions is preferred."

A-ha! Brewer's Book of Phrase and Fable:

"It is common in informal speech to pluralize the last word in the usual way and not the first, but in edited prose, the form trades unions is preferred."

Finally, I am persuaded. Good to know.

Rather than continuing the debate about pluralization of trade union, we'd like to suggest that the term not be used. Trade union is a British (and probably Commonwealth) term, perhaps unfamiliar to many Americans. In the mythical land of the US, labor union is the term used. We'd much prefer to see simply union, along with a definition of the term.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador at Large

Yes, but you are forgetting that Britain is a far more important, and generally better, country then America... :P

OOC: When NSers derride our military I always bring out this little gem...

(OOC: I repeat, my comment was intended as an honest question rather than as derision... I apologise if its tone came across as offensive.)

Not sure if this is the loophole or not, it probably isn't, but I have picked something up in this clause. I've put my changes to it up in bold.

As written, it could be read as only applying to employees of the UN itself.


Blast! Yes, that was the one that I'd found: Next time I'll try to keep quiet about even having [i]spotted a loophole (not just about what it is) unless & until the resolution concerned gets passed.

Rather than get hung up on trade.trades, labor/labour, and rather than go for 'unions' alone (since there are, shudder, other organisations that call themselves unions, such as the Mothers' Union, the Union of Concerned Citizens, and such), how about calling them 'industrial union(s)'?

BTW, why is it, whenever the discussion gets into unions in essential services, somebody raises the spectre of a shop steward calling a strike at the drop of a hat? Shop stewards aren't essential to unionism. My daughter, for example, is the union rep at her workplace. That doesn't mean she can call a strike. It means that, whenever a workmate has a question about the award, safety, wages, etc, they come to her first. If she can't answer it, she's the one who gets onto the union.

But if there's an issue causing an upset, she can't call 'em all out. Nor for an authorised strike, anyway. She contacts the union organiser in the region, and he listens to her account. He may tell her there's nothing they can do ("Just tell 'em they're idiots and tell 'em I said so"). He may ring or e-mail the employer to point out that a breach of industrial law is occurring. He may come down to the office and try to sort it out. It's often better all round to do that than to get the legal types or the government authorities in.

The thing is, having a union rep on-site means that there is someone the workers can speak to and someone the bosses can deal with (and have to listen to) before an issue gets too bad. If she has to contact the union -- making it official business -- the union organisers know it's a genuine problem, not some minor issue that a bit of common-sense could solve.

Going on strike in Australia is so hedged about with legalisms already, and will be more so soon, that it's not something to leave to a shop steward. Not unless the union actually wants to be hit with fines heavy enough to cost 'em the union HQ. Especially since many penalties can be applied individually to the leaders of the union (which is why some union leaders don't own a thing, officially. They've learnt from the bosses the trick of having everything held in the name of their partner, parent, whoever).

Nor are all strikes the same. There are 'paper' strikes, where the sole point is to prove that an industrial dispute exists, so the whole issue can be properly cleared up in formal conciliation/arbitration. There are communication strikes, where both sides have stopped listening to each other and someone has to bang their heads together. There are strikes caused when some hotshot full of theory decides he/she is going to take on the unions/bosses and show 'em who's the alpha male (these are usually boss-initiated, not because workers are angels but because it's generally harder to get a whole group of people to back your theories than it is to inform your employees arbitrarily that you're changing things, my way or the highway). There are technology strikes, when a whole industry is changing. There are the terrible strikes over principle, which still make people cry when bright young journos come to interview them two generations later. And there are all the others I haven't thought of.

So (the point of this rant): strikes are not fun and not done for entertainment. They hurt employers, employees and sometimes the public. That doesn't mean they should be banned. It means they should be avoided unless and until there's nowhere else to go but out.

BTW, why is it, whenever the discussion gets into unions in essential services, somebody raises the spectre of a shop steward calling a strike at the drop of a hat? Shop stewards aren't essential to unionism. My daughter, for example, is the union rep at her workplace. That doesn't mean she can call a strike. It means that, whenever a workmate has a question about the award, safety, wages, etc, they come to her first. If she can't answer it, she's the one who gets onto the union.

But if there's an issue causing an upset, she can't call 'em all out. Nor for an authorised strike, anyway. She contacts the union organiser in the region, and he listens to her account. He may tell her there's nothing they can do ("Just tell 'em they're idiots and tell 'em I said so"). He may ring or e-mail the employer to point out that a breach of industrial law is occurring. He may come down to the office and try to sort it out. It's often better all round to do that than to get the legal types or the government authorities in.

The thing is, having a union rep on-site means that there is someone the workers can speak to and someone the bosses can deal with (and have to listen to) before an issue gets too bad. If she has to contact the union -- making it official business -- the union organisers know it's a genuine problem, not some minor issue that a bit of common-sense could solve.

Going on strike in Australia is so hedged about with legalisms already, and will be more so soon, that it's not something to leave to a shop steward. Not unless the union actually wants to be hit with fines heavy enough to cost 'em the union HQ. Especially since many penalties can be applied individually to the leaders of the union (which is why some union leaders don't own a thing, officially. They've learnt from the bosses the trick of having everything held in the name of their partner, parent, whoever).

Nor are all strikes the same. There are 'paper' strikes, where the sole point is to prove that an industrial dispute exists, so the whole issue can be properly cleared up in formal conciliation/arbitration. There are communication strikes, where both sides have stopped listening to each other and someone has to bang their heads together. There are strikes caused when some hotshot full of theory decides he/she is going to take on the unions/bosses and show 'em who's the alpha male (these are usually boss-initiated, not because workers are angels but because it's generally harder to get a whole group of people to back your theories than it is to inform your employees arbitrarily that you're changing things, my way or the highway). There are technology strikes, when a whole industry is changing. There are the terrible strikes over principle, which still make people cry when bright young journos come to interview them two generations later. And there are all the others I haven't thought of.

So (the point of this rant): strikes are not fun and not done for entertainment. They hurt employers, employees and sometimes the public. That doesn't mean they should be banned. It means they should be avoided unless and until there's nowhere else to go but out.


If it does work like that, fine... but if this resolution doesn't let nations set any rules about how the unions that exist within them work then we can't count on it doing so.

(OOC: I'm British, and old enough to remember what some of the unions over here were like back in the 1970s...)

Rather than get hung up on trade.trades, labor/labour, and rather than go for 'unions' alone (since there are, shudder, other organisations that call themselves unions, such as the Mothers' Union, the Union of Concerned Citizens, and such), how about calling them 'industrial union(s)'?

The point is valid, however we stand by our recommendation of the term union. You'll note that we also recommended a definition of the term to avoid the sort of confusion the honorable delegate warns of. We would note that the term industrial union might be taken to exclude unions operating in areas of business and public service not generally thought of as industries.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm still a little sceptical about the army thing. I think you would have to allow total exclusion for the military from strike action. If a county's military was on strike, it would be a perfect opportunity for a nation to perform a sneak attack (OOC: Like Pearl Harbor). If the entire military was on strike, you may not know you were being attacked or invaded until it was too late, as there would be no radar operators, no telephonists, no observers. A country with a military on strike is the perfect time for an unscrupulous, possibly non-UN, nation to attack.
Also, do wars against terrorist groups count as being at war?

The other loophole that I would like to be plugged is the one that says that the government can only interfer with unions as much as it does other organisations. If the government insisted on having a government stooge at the head of all other organisations, then they could insist on having government stooges as the secretaries-general of trades unions. I would rather it just said that the government is only allowed to interfer to enforce minimum democratic standards

Also, do wars against terrorist groups count as being at war?
According to Rights & Duties:

"War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates."

According to Rights & Duties:

"War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates."

So, no then. The military could feasibly go on strike and endanger the population...

So, no then. The military could feasibly go on strike and endanger the population...
I don't think anyone's saying the military should be allowed to strike, though.

As it stands at the moment, this resolution states that Military personnel in a nation at war or mobilising for war are not allowed to strike. If they are not at war or mobilising for war, they can...

As it stands at the moment, this resolution states that Military personnel in a nation at war or mobilising for war are not allowed to strike. If they are not at war or mobilising for war, they can...
Erm...oops. I'd just assumed they would have obviously excluded the military. Please do so.

If they are not at war or mobilising for war, they can...That's a good way to suddenly find yourself at war while your soldiers are on strike. At the very least, governments need to be able to instantly end military strikes in the event of war should the strike predate the war.

Of course, I'm still of the opinion that the military shouldn't be allowed to unionize at all...

That's a good way to suddenly find yourself at war while your soldiers are on strike. At the very least, governments need to be able to instantly end military strikes in the event of war should the strike predate the war.

Of course, I'm still of the opinion that the military shouldn't be allowed to unionize at all...

On that note, I like the way they described the differences between the military and police in the current Battlestar Galactica series:

The Military protects a society from external threats.
The Police protect a society from internal threats.

The way to prevent governments from becoming too abusive of people in the military is generally to limit the conscription and/or really offer some nice incentives to soldiers. Plenty of RL governments do just that. For example, I'm a US military brat, which means I can enroll in programs like USAA (a great insurance provider) ... the benefit is to my dad and serves as a benefit to anybody who is considering joining the US military, as they can have some certainity that their family will be somewhat carried for.

All that said, I too would support exempting military, but granting police the right to collective barginning.

which means I can enroll in programs like USAA (a great insurance provider)Damn straight it is! [/hijack]

considering joining the US military, as they can have some certainity that their family will be somewhat carried for.Actually, I believe USAA requires that you reach a certain rank (Sgt. I believe), and it's also open to certain non-military government employees. FBI agents, for example. [/hijack2]

All that said, I too would support exempting military, but granting police the right to collective barginning.Personally, I'd exempt it from all government employees, but I know that's not a very popular view point. Of course, government employees being unionized is a relatively recent development. Unions started this because membership in the private sector was dropping and they wanted to keep phat loot in their coffers.

The government needs to be able to replace worthless employees, especially when critical services depend on it. Being unable to fire a grossly incompitent airport baggage screener could lead to catastrophy. Unionizing them means that changes can't be made to quickly adapt.

Furthermore, ridiculous wage demands drive up taxes and divert public funds from places where they're actually needed. Unionized government employees tend to have absurd contracts. My favorite was when a group Illinois State workers were threatening a strike because the government wanted to raise their contribution to health insurance from 0.5% to 2%. Meanwhile, I was sitting around and paying 50%. Sympathy was in short supply.

The military, however, have one big sleeve up there card that over jobs do not have, and makes unionisation impossible: A coup d'etat. Piss 'em off, and you've huge numbers of armed and highly trained men and women at the doors of the presidential palace...

Actually, I believe USAA requires that you reach a certain rank (Sgt. I believe), and it's also open to certain non-military government employees. FBI agents, for example. [/hijack2]

That makes sense. Though one of my grandfathers was only a simple enlisted sailor during the war, and the Navy still paid for the marker on his tombstone and provided a flag to my grandmother.



Personally, I'd exempt it from all government employees, but I know that's not a very popular view point. Of course, government employees being unionized is a relatively recent development. Unions started this because membership in the private sector was dropping and they wanted to keep phat loot in their coffers.

As a RL Government Employee I have mixed feelings about this. They can't really pay us completely on a merit based salary system, because that would invite *more* graft than there currently is in the system, and it does exist.

But at the same time, the most serious problem with public sector work is ....




The government needs to be able to replace worthless employees, especially when critical services depend on it. Being unable to fire a grossly incompitent airport baggage screener could lead to catastrophy. Unionizing them means that changes can't be made to quickly adapt.


Just what you said, but I'd also go after employees who grossly under produce too.


Furthermore, ridiculous wage demands drive up taxes and divert public funds from places where they're actually needed. Unionized government employees tend to have absurd contracts. My favorite was when a group Illinois State workers were threatening a strike because the government wanted to raise their contribution to health insurance from 0.5% to 2%. Meanwhile, I was sitting around and paying 50%. Sympathy was in short supply.

Um, some government employees (not the political appointees) are often making less than private sector. It depends on the position really. A government lawyer makes so much *less* than a private sector lawyer. Ditto for an engineer. While other positions do get more.

With any job there are reasons to work in one place that stack up against the reasons to not work there. For me, there have been times I've wanted to leave the public sector and times I've been happy here. Though to bring this to the subject of labour unions ... though I believe in them, I would rather my union be *weaker*. I believe in collective barginning and strikes, but I do not like the amount of red tape unions have created in protecting state jobs. If we could have an easier time at firing some government employees, I would think the need for collective barginning would be less, as the image of the "Lazy Government Worker" would be less common.

OoC: I think the difference in wages whithin the public sector depends entirely on the power of the unions. For example, the transport unions have more power then the civil service unions, not just because of membership sizes, but also the vocational nature of the jobs involved (in the UK, no-one becomes a civil servant for money, but out of wishing to serve the country). Add to this the effect that strikes have, and it makes sense why tube drivers are grossly overpaid (they go on strike, the city shuts down, you get thousands of angry protestors) and diplomats seriously underpaid (they go on strike, no-one really notices).

That makes sense. Though one of my grandfathers was only a simple enlisted sailor during the war, and the Navy still paid for the marker on his tombstone and provided a flag to my grandmother.USAA isn't a government agency. But, I believe they changed the requirement more recently than that. In the 80's, I think.

As a RL Government Employee I have mixed feelings about this. They can't really pay us completely on a merit based salary system, because that would invite *more* graft than there currently is in the system, and it does exist.As opposed to the graft that runs rampant through unions? They may not be run by the mob but they might as well be. And to say nothing of the unions that are in the pockets of the companies they're supposed to oppose. Like... say... Chicago Local 1...

Um, some government employees (not the political appointees) are often making less than private sector. It depends on the position really. A government lawyer makes so much *less* than a private sector lawyer. Ditto for an engineer. While other positions do get more.So? In theory you join the public sector to serve the public; not because it's an easy job with a powerful union that will assure the fact that after a year or so you'll need to kill someone in order to be fired.

Public sector employees (typically) are either motivated by good intentions, or worthless gits who can't get a private sector job doing the same thing. Public Sector Unions aren't necessary for the former, and force us to suffer the latter.

Though to bring this to the subject of labour unions ... though I believe in them, I would rather my union be *weaker*.By and large, I believe the time of the union has passed. Certain dangerous occupations should have them, but the majority are no longer needed. Once upon a time, a Baseball players' union was a good idea; players generally needed winter jobs to eat. Now, they Players' Union seems to exist only to help players avoid being caught breaking the rules. An extreme example, yes, but it illustrates how much unions have changed. The vast majority of them (in the real world) serve no purpose other than to protect workers that have no business continuing their employment and to ensure that union leaders get big paychecks.

And to donate money to the DNC. Ahem.

If we could have an easier time at firing some government employees, I would think the need for collective barginning would be less, as the image of the "Lazy Government Worker" would be less common.Same goes for every sector. To say nothing of the amount of money that could be saved. There's a reason people use non-union labor for things like building houses: nobody can afford union labor. It's especially amusing when the people using non-union labor are politicians trying to force everybody to use union labor, but I'm getting off on a tangent here, heh.

OoC: I think the difference in wages whithin the public sector depends entirely on the power of the unions. For example, the transport unions have more power then the civil service unions, not just because of membership sizes, but also the vocational nature of the jobs involved (in the UK, no-one becomes a civil servant for money, but out of wishing to serve the country). Add to this the effect that strikes have, and it makes sense why tube drivers are grossly overpaid (they go on strike, the city shuts down, you get thousands of angry protestors) and diplomats seriously underpaid (they go on strike, no-one really notices).
OOC: Tube drivers aren't overpaid. There seems to be this misconception that being a tube driver is the same as being a bus driver. The job is a lot more complicated than you might imagine, particularly with regards to safety.

OOC: There seems to be this misconception that being a tube driver is the same as being a bus driver. The job is a lot more complicated than you might imagine, particularly with regards to safety.If the tube operates in any way similar to the trains around Chicago, it's considerably easier than driving a bus. I knew a guy who ran a train, he had four positions: "Go", "Go Fast", "Stop", and "Go Backwards". The train automatically slowed down for turns so they didn't even need to worry about that. The whole thing was almost completely automated, in fact.

If the tube operates in any way similar to the trains around Chicago, it's considerably easier than driving a bus. I knew a guy who ran a train, he had four positions: "Go", "Go Fast", "Stop", and "Go Backwards". The train automatically slowed down for turns so they didn't even need to worry about that. The whole thing was almost completely automated, in fact.
Sounds like the jobs are different, then. Maybe Chicago tube drivers are paid considerably less, too?

Couldn't honestly say. I do know that about 10 years ago, they went on an early retirement spree to unload several older operators. Obviously they altered the pay scale down, but I don't know how it compares to other jobs or to what they pay across the pond (adjusted for cost of living, exchange rates, etc. etc.)

OoC: Tube drivers have a starting salary of 28,000 pounds. Teachers have a starting salary of about 20,000 pounds. For some of the lines, it is complicated (although still far easier then mainline train operations, the drivers of which get paid roughly the same). However, for the most busy line (The Victoria), the trains are fitted with ATO, which means that once drivers have reached the main line at Seven Sisters, they have only to open and close the train doors at each station and press the start button for the train to run automatically to the next station, responding to coded impulses transmitted through the track.

Other then the Victoria line, the controls of a tube train are still rather simple. You have three handles: gears (forwards and backwards), break and throttle. They really are quite simple to operate (I managed okay on a simulator first time). The difficulty comes in line knowledge (but thats easier than the knowledge you'd need to be a taxi driver or a bus driver) an stopping distances. Even the signals are far easier then the main line: Red =stop, green=go an amber=next signal red...


EDIT: Now why the blazes do I know that?

Well, I think teachers are woefully underpaid. But for the tube drivers... I'll have to check with East Hackney, he knows more about this kind of thing. I believe there's a whole heap of stuff that isn't immediately obvious but may go some way towards justifying the wages. Or maybe there's not, in which case I'm wrong. It's not beyond the realms of possibility...

Maybe there is something I'm missing, by I cannot think of it. It doesn't really matter though, the reason they are high paid is due to the union activism, and the fact you can't outsource tube drivers...

OoC: Tube drivers have a starting salary of 28,000 pounds. Teachers have a starting salary of about 20,000 pounds.

OOC: Can anyone tell me how on earth a tube driver has a similar starting salary to a university lecturer???
Strong urge for sniper smilies... resisted.

How about this:



While it doesn't exclude whole job sectors, it does leave wiggle room for nations.


Quite a bit of wiggle room, yes: I think that that would let the government of St Edmund ban strikes under most of the circumstances where we'd really want to do so.


If we're going to get stuck with having to allow unions in the armed services, even if we are going to be allowed to keep them from going on strike, then can we at least have those unions exempted from the right to join international federations?

Oh, and as the term "Military" is quite often used to refer to Armies alone, rather than to all Armed Forces, would you please replace it with "Armed Forces" here so that people can't argue that the clause isn't also supposed to cover Navies, Marines, Air Forces & etc, too...

Maybe I'm missing it, but what is the strength of this proposal to be?

It's pretty watered down, so I'd suggest Significant.

And category?

I'm completely lost. Do we have a final draft? Do we even know who's submitting it?

Both good questions...

I'm completely lost. Do we have a final draft? Do we even know who's submitting it?

I'm not sure on that, but I think so. The points for the past several pages have really been more a mix of opinions on unions and not the draft. Since the thread was started by Groot Gouda, I would assume that they will be the proposal authors.

I'm willing to hold off on submission of my government's "Alcoholic Beverages Trade Pact" proposal if Groot Gouda and others feel we should focus on one of the two proposals. Otherwise my plan was to submit the Free Trade proposal, but not campaign for it at first. Once my office has collected a crude list of nations that might be interested, then we'd actively campaign.

Similarly, if given a list of potential UN Delegates to contact with respect to this proposal, my staff may have time to aid in any telegram campaign.

I'm completely lost. Do we have a final draft? Do we even know who's submitting it?

On page one you'll find the latest and greatest draft. If and when it's ready, I will submit it. No hurry, though. I want a decent resolution that forces some left-wing basic rights through other people's throats without loopholes.

Probably category human rights, strength significant.

Of course, I'm still of the opinion that the military shouldn't be allowed to unionize at all...

I only find that acceptable if a reliable way of ensuring their rights as employees can be found. If not, they should be allowed to strike. But I accept that it will be more difficult to let this resolution pass if that right is granted too liberally.

Quite a bit of wiggle room, yes: I think that that would let the government of St Edmund ban strikes under most of the circumstances where we'd really want to do so.

Could you describe those circumstances more clearly, so I can use that to create a decent resolution.

If we're going to get stuck with having to allow unions in the armed services, even if we are going to be allowed to keep them from going on strike, then can we at least have those unions exempted from the right to join international federations?

Could be a point.

Oh, and as the term "Military" is quite often used to refer to Armies alone, rather than to all Armed Forces, would you please replace it with "Armed Forces" here so that people can't argue that the clause isn't also supposed to cover Navies, Marines, Air Forces & etc, too...

Sure.

The government needs to be able to replace worthless employees

We're discussing the right to form or join unions. Reasons to fire someone can be dealt with on a national level. This resolution does not say incompetent employees shouldn't be fired.

OoC: I think the difference in wages whithin the public sector depends entirely on the power of the unions. For example, the transport unions have more power then the civil service unions, not just because of membership sizes, but also the vocational nature of the jobs involved (in the UK, no-one becomes a civil servant for money, but out of wishing to serve the country). Add to this the effect that strikes have, and it makes sense why tube drivers are grossly overpaid (they go on strike, the city shuts down, you get thousands of angry protestors) and diplomats seriously underpaid (they go on strike, no-one really notices).

OOC: I don't see why tube drivers are overpaid. Without tube drivers, the city shuts down. So they do a very important job. Why not pay them accordingly? Besides, for things like strikes in public transport, you really need the support from the people. Just pissing people off doesn't get you a pay rise.

We're discussing the right to form or join unions. Reasons to fire someone can be dealt with on a national level. This resolution does not say incompetent employees shouldn't be fired.

We might be able to agree on this yet...

For clarity, the draft as it is now:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Trade Unions,

ALSO CONVINCED that Trade Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. DECIDES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Trade Unions (hereafter referred to as "Unions") for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike, for the purpose of getting a fair wage and improvement of working conditions or other reasons that justify such heavy actions; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike,

3. EXEMPTS from the aforementioned right:
a. Personnel of the armed forces in a nation at war or mobilising for war;
b. Strikes not authorized by unions;
c. Strikes which endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that independent arbitration is provided in case of conflict for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Trade Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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, as long as the Union is organised democratically,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities to get a job based regardless of Union-membership,

7. DECLARES that Unions have to respect national law like other organisations, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution, as long as a just balance between employer's and employee's rights is ensured.

We're discussing the right to form or join unions. Reasons to fire someone can be dealt with on a national level. This resolution does not say incompetent employees shouldn't be fired.Your walking a fine line here. I've yet to see a union that didn't move hell and earth to make sure that employees aren't fired. Personally, I think it's great that your Proposal will specifically mention that nations still can set grounds for termination and that unions will have no say in who gets fired... wait a second...

I only find that acceptable if a reliable way of ensuring their rights as employees can be found. If not, they should be allowed to strike. But I accept that it will be more difficult to let this resolution pass if that right is granted too liberally.Mmm... except that soldiers are a different class than other workers. They sign away a great deal of their freedoms in order to serve their country. Unionizing simply undermines the military; individuality is bad in a fighting force.

Your walking a fine line here. I've yet to see a union that didn't move hell and earth to make sure that employees aren't fired. Personally, I think it's great that your Proposal will specifically mention that nations still can set grounds for termination and that unions will have no say in who gets fired... wait a second...
OOC: Actually, I think you're crediting unions with far more activism and care than they actually exhibit. Individual cases seem to be rarely pursued and, when they are, they tend to be clearly where incompetence is not the sole issue.

Then again, US unions seem to be peculiarly unpleasant breed. Maybe that's because US businesses are that much more unpleasant themselves.

Mmm... except that soldiers are a different class than other workers. They sign away a great deal of their freedoms in order to serve their country. Unionizing simply undermines the military; individuality is bad in a fighting force.

This is true when soldiers are volunteers, but what if they are conscripts (RL countries with some form universal male conscription: Switzerland, Israel {females too for Israel}, Norway, etc.)?

But I actually do agree that individual in a military is a bad idea.

Personally, I'm happy with "military" being used instead of "armed forces".

This is true when soldiers are volunteers, but what if they are conscripts?Then they are fulfilling their obligation to be a citizen. If they want to be a citizen, they serve. Still no need for a union.

Then they are fulfilling their obligation to be a citizen. If they want to be a citizen, they serve. Still no need for a union.

Actually that is logical. I struggled with this for a minute but do understand.

Your walking a fine line here. I've yet to see a union that didn't move hell and earth to make sure that employees aren't fired. Personally, I think it's great that your Proposal will specifically mention that nations still can set grounds for termination and that unions will have no say in who gets fired... wait a second...

Why should I do that? I'm not setting down the rules of employment. All I want is that workers are allowed to unionize so they can protect themselves from exploitation. You and several others seem to fear that incompetent workers cannot be fired. Now, I've yet to see a company that didn't move hell and earth to make sure employees can be fired at will. As a company is in a position of power, paying the wages, hiring and firing, you need a force to balance it out. That's why unions are needed.

Mmm... except that soldiers are a different class than other workers. They sign away a great deal of their freedoms in order to serve their country. Unionizing simply undermines the military; individuality is bad in a fighting force.

Unions are about collectivism, not individuality ;)
The thing is, often there's no choice in joining the millitairy, for example in the case of conscription. You can't take away the freedoms of those people without offering a just reward and proper conditions. And that will probably improve the army as well (a union could demand better working guns, for example).

You and several others seem to fear that incompetent workers cannot be fired.This would be based on real life evidence that shows that union workers are damn near impossible to fire. For instance, I have never, ever heard of a teacher with tenure being fired for anything less than breaking the law.

Now, I've yet to see a company that didn't move hell and earth to make sure employees can be fired at will.And yet to see a union that didn't move hell and earth to make sure the employer can't do that. Especially when it comes to public sector unions.

As a company is in a position of power, paying the wages, hiring and firing, you need a force to balance it out. That's why unions are needed.Nonsense. This isn't 1920. Companies realise that abusing workers is not acceptable any more, and does more harm than good. Furthermore, there's the Department of Labor and OSHA for a reason. We already have the government protecting the rights of workers, we don't need unions doing the same.

Especially since most of them just seem to be campaign-donation generating machines anymore.

Unions are about collectivism, not individualityUnions are about opposing the "employer". When the employer is the military, opposition is not acceptable. The "us vs. them" mentality of a union is poisonous to the military.

The thing is, often there's no choice in joining the millitairy, for example in the case of conscription. You can't take away the freedoms of those people without offering a just reward and proper conditions.See above. The reward is citizenship.

And that will probably improve the army as well (a union could demand better working guns, for example).This is absurd on so many levels.

If the armed forces were to have a union, you get the problem of leaving your country VERY vulnerable to attack. Permitting a quick diversion into RL, Pearl Harbor. The US was neither at war nor mobilising for war. If the armed forces had been on strike on 7th December 1941, then the effects would have been far worse. Nobody would have known they were coming, the aircraft carriers would have been in port, and Japanese zeroes would have been completely safe from attack. The US would not have been able to defend Pearl Harbour in any way shape or form. It would have been utterly devastating.
And if there aren't military unions, its not as if the government could abuse them anyway. After all, you've just pissed off thousands of heavily armed men; look at the number of coup d'etats in history that have occured simply due to poor conditions soldiers live in...

Quite a bit of wiggle room, yes: I think that that would let the government of St Edmund ban strikes under most of the circumstances where we'd really want to do so.

Could you describe those circumstances more clearly, so I can use that to create a decent resolution.


No, I'd rather keep the wiggle room... ;)

(Don't worry too much about it, St Edmund would still be allowing strikes by most sorts of unions under most circumstances...)

Groot, you have two article 7's in the latest draft.

ALSO CONVINCED that Trade Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,
You might change this to FURTHER CONVINCED.

1. DECIDES that all nations must recognize ...
I would use RESOLVES or something similar instead of decides. CONCLUDES or DETERMINES perhaps.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike, for the purpose of getting a fair wage and improvement of working conditions or other reasons that justify such heavy actions; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike,
I would remove the bolded part or clarify what the other reasons might be. As written, governments might use this to restrict the right to strike to "wages" and "working conditions". What about healthcare? Retirement benefits? Hours?

3. EXEMPTS from the aforementioned right:
a. Personnel of the armed forces in a nation at war or mobilising for war;
I'm not sold on the idea of a unionized military. I wouldn't oppose the resolution just because of this, but maybe you should leave it up to individual governments. Also, "mobilising for war" isn't defined.

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities to get a job based regardless of Union-membership,
Hmm. This sounds like "right to work". Would non-union workers be covered by any collective bargaining agreements reached between the company and union?

7. DECLARES that Unions have to respect national law...
This should be 8.

This would be based on real life evidence that shows that union workers are damn near impossible to fire. For instance, I have never, ever heard of a teacher with tenure being fired for anything less than breaking the law.

That's cultural, too. Teachers don't get fired too easily. Over here, it's only since recently that there's a yearly talk with the management about someone's functioning. That's independent of unions.

And yet to see a union that didn't move hell and earth to make sure the employer can't do that. Especially when it comes to public sector unions.

Yes, and that means balance, and that's why we need this resolution.

Nonsense. This isn't 1920. Companies realise that abusing workers is not acceptable any more, and does more harm than good.

To this I can only reply with: "Hah!"

Furthermore, there's the Department of Labor and OSHA for a reason. We already have the government protecting the rights of workers, we don't need unions doing the same.

You might have, many others don't. If you're going by the nations doing well already, no UN resolution is necessary.

Unions are about opposing the "employer". When the employer is the military, opposition is not acceptable. The "us vs. them" mentality of a union is poisonous to the military.

:) the military is all about "us vs them". But I've changed the resolution so a nation may now disallow strikes from the armed forces; however they have to provide independent arbitration to ensure their rights.

See above. The reward is citizenship.

Yes, sorry I forgot to answer that I find that a ridiculous argument. You're a citizen when you are born, it shouldn't be necesary to learn how to dismantle a gun or shoot people first.

Updated draft according to Yeldan suggestions.


Hmm. This sounds like "right to work". Would non-union workers be covered by any collective bargaining agreements reached between the company and union

It's just so companies don't hire non-union workers because they fear union-workers cause too much trouble.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Trade Unions,

FURTHER CONVINCED that Trade Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Trade Unions (hereafter referred to as "Unions") for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike,

3. EXEMPTS from the aforementioned right:
a. Personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by unions;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike, independent arbitration is provided whose decision shall be carried out by all parties in the conflict,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Trade Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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, as long as the Union is organised democratically,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities to get a job based regardless of Union-membership,

8. DECLARES that Unions have to respect national law like other organisations, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution, as long as a just balance between employer's and employee's rights is ensured.

the military is all about "us vs them".Well, yes. Our nation vs. Those Bastards Over There, not Enlisted vs. Officers.

But I've changed the resolution so a nation may now disallow strikes from the armed forces; however they have to provide independent arbitration to ensure their rights.Well... this is better. Don't like the unionizing, but this is an acceptable compromise. I guess.

You're a citizen when you are born, it shouldn't be necesary to learn how to dismantle a gun or shoot people first.No, not really. What it takes to be a citizen is decided by the country. Just because birth is the standard used in most nations doesn't make it some kind of universal constant. Also, there's a lot more to the military than just using a gun.

At any rate, the theory of service before citizenship is not just some crackpot theory. For one thing, people are far more likely to value their citizenship. Or, if a nation is... say... surrounded by hostile nations that want to annihilate it, mandating service could be necessary for the survival of the nation.

3. EXEMPTS from the aforementioned right:

b. Strikes not authorized by unions;

May we ask the author about the need of this clause.
We don't understand why all workers have the right to go on strike appart when not authorized by a union.
What about when there is no unions in a company or economic sector.
Isn't it discriminatory?

In particular, I'm thinking about workers in economically developping nations, were in some areas unions may be rare (even if legal);

what about wildcat strikes and flying pickets?

A wildcat strike is one which happens without a legal ballot of the membership and is usually called at very short notice. I would like to see those stopped for good.

A union should have to ballot their members by post and the result independantly confirmed before a strike begins otherwise you'll have strikes called for the most minor things before arbitration can be used.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

So you're still allowing unions in the armed forces to belong to international federations? :(

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Trade Unions (hereafter referred to as "Unions") for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationallyI can't wait to see the CEO union.

I can't wait to see the CEO union.
Or the stockholder union...

"WE WON'T WORK 'TILL SOMEONE IMPROVES THE ECONOMY!"

what about wildcat strikes and flying pickets?

A wildcat strike is one which happens without a legal ballot of the membership and is usually called at very short notice. I would like to see those stopped for good.

A union should have to ballot their members by post and the result independantly confirmed before a strike begins otherwise you'll have strikes called for the most minor things before arbitration can be used.

I think that the union speaks with one voice, therefore it isn't the government's problem how they come up with it. However, I think that is fairly controversial, and might be best left up to each nation.

If you work as a garbage collector, and your employer refuses to pay a higher wage, what do you do?

You either get over it, or find a new job that pays better.

It's not as if there's a whole load of other unskilled jobs available for you.

I'm sorry, but 'unskilled' being the key word there (Not that I personaly think that if you work as a garbage collector that you are unskilled, I dont think that at all). But if they are 'unskilled' as you say, why should they get paid more than a 'skilled' person (whoever that would be). It sounds more to me like you are disgrimating against them, rather than for them. Like they aren't good enough to get a decent job. Sorry, I dont believe that. Anyone who wants to succeed (in Ordo domus Sancta Mari, of course) can do so, regardless of who they are.

To take the garbage disposal people as example: they can go on strike, up to a point where a judge can put a stop because the lack of garbage collecting becomes life-threatening. They have made their point though, and have shown how valuable they are. Which could mean they get treated accordingly. That's fair.

That to me is illogical. If they can only go on strike until it is determined that they have to do their jobs, (fancy that, having to work) then why would the employer care that they are on strike? They are going to do their jobs anyway, the strike time is only a period for the employer to hold back their wages.

But then, I have had little-to-no intrest in unions, as all they tend to do to me is make me pay more for things I need/want and cause inflation.

So, they demand more money so that they can buy more things, which means that the employer has to raise prices so that they can continue to make a profit; which means that if anyone wants those products, they must get more money, which means that their business must pay them more, and in turn raise the price on their products. This continues in the entire economy until everything is back where it began, except that the dollar (or whatever money unit) is worth less internationaly.

-Kathryne

--sorry about the message if it has nothing to do with what y'all are talking about (it probably doesnt) I was sorta reading and got to about page 4 or 5, and then I found this post that just had such an easy rebuttle to, and I had to go anyway, and made a comment. So sorry if this comes in out of nowhere...

--oh yeah, and a long time ago y'all were talking about labor vs labour, and I gotta admit that even though I'm an American, I didn't notice the spelling of labour with the u, (i kinda like it better, truthfully), so dont think that all of us Americans are prejudiced agains British spelling! :D

May we ask the author about the need of this clause.
We don't understand why all workers have the right to go on strike appart when not authorized by a union.
What about when there is no unions in a company or economic sector.
Isn't it discriminatory?

In particular, I'm thinking about workers in economically developping nations, were in some areas unions may be rare (even if legal);

For deity's sake, the whole resolution is about giving people the right to form or join a resolution and you wonder about illegal unions!? Read the resolution! And learn while you're doing so. Maybe you'll one day write a decent resolution.

A wildcat strike is one which happens without a legal ballot of the membership and is usually called at very short notice. I would like to see those stopped for good.

Yes, your matey L&E just quoted the passage about that. Wildcat strikes have been mentioned before. Read, please!

For deity's sake, the whole resolution is about giving people the right to form or join a resolution and you wonder about illegal unions!? Read the resolution! And learn while you're doing so. Maybe you'll one day write a decent resolution.
Read his post. 'Even if legal'. It is a point of fact that with all the assorted guff, setting up unions - and more importantly setting up unions with any real power - requires capital investment, requires workers who are able to either volunteer significant amounts of time or acquire funds for a salary, and generally is not the sort of thing sweat-shop labourers are automatically going to leap into. I think you need to reread his post, and answer his actual concerns, your personal dislike for his legislative history being in this case irrelevant.

OOC: IRL, this is a concern the ILO has repeatedly raised about developing economies where unionisation may be legal, but not always practical for the workers.

You either get over it, or find a new job that pays better.

Yeah, right. As I said, those jobs aren't available, or are just as badly paid.

I'm sorry, but 'unskilled' being the key word there (Not that I personaly think that if you work as a garbage collector that you are unskilled, I dont think that at all). But if they are 'unskilled' as you say, why should they get paid more than a 'skilled' person (whoever that would be).

Unskilled is a key word. Don't tell me your garbage collectors go to university, or that children in your nation want to be a garbage collector. It's not a pleasant job, and people will want to avoid it if possible. You don't need to be able to do much except toss bags in the truck or put containers in the right position. It's unskilled labour. And I'm not saying it should be paid more than skilled labour. It should be paid fairly. It's a tough job to do, it stinks and it requires physical labour. And if people don't do it, it stinks everywhere. So they should be paid accordingly.

It sounds more to me like you are disgrimating against them, rather than for them. Like they aren't good enough to get a decent job. Sorry, I dont believe that. Anyone who wants to succeed (in Ordo domus Sancta Mari, of course) can do so, regardless of who they are.

Sure.

That to me is illogical. If they can only go on strike until it is determined that they have to do their jobs, (fancy that, having to work) then why would the employer care that they are on strike? They are going to do their jobs anyway, the strike time is only a period for the employer to hold back their wages.

And people complaining their garbage isn't collected. Trust me, that becomes a problem rather quickly. The garbage company or government is responsible for removing garbage from the street, and they will have to hire other people to do that job. That costs extra. There's no profit for a company.

But then, I have had little-to-no intrest in unions, as all they tend to do to me is make me pay more for things I need/want and cause inflation.

It's not just pay, it's working conditions as well. Health and safety, that kind of stuff.

So you're still allowing unions in the armed forces to belong to international federations? :(

I probably will. I have pondered not to allow them, which would result in yet another clause that would either be big or small and too vague. If you're worried about international security, I think there are plenty of things you can do on a national level to prevent information leaks etc without violating this resolution.

I probably will. I have pondered not to allow them, which would result in yet another clause that would either be big or small and too vague. If you're worried about international security, I think there are plenty of things you can do on a national level to prevent information leaks etc without violating this resolution.
Not if you steamroller over them with this proposal. If you want Groot Goudan soldiers in an international labour federation, let them join: we certainly won't stop them joining. But don't force this upon other nations, who take the defence of their nation - something the UN has twice assured - a little more seriously.

For deity's sake, the whole resolution is about giving people the right to form or join a resolution and you wonder about illegal unions!?

As your proposal states than every citizen may form a Union, then anyone wanting to go on strike has just to form a Union. So I don't get the point of 3.b.

As I said, my concern is about workers in economically developping nations, in particular medium business were workers may not have created a Union from an admistrative point of view.

As I said, my concern is about workers in economically developping nations, in particular medium business were workers may not have created a Union from an admistrative point of view.

Nothing's stopping them after this has passed.

Read his post. 'Even if legal'. It is a point of fact that with all the assorted guff, setting up unions - and more importantly setting up unions with any real power - requires capital investment, requires workers who are able to either volunteer significant amounts of time or acquire funds for a salary, and generally is not the sort of thing sweat-shop labourers are automatically going to leap into. I think you need to reread his post, and answer his actual concerns, your personal dislike for his legislative history being in this case irrelevant.

I think his actual concern is irrelevant. This resolution is about the right to form or join a union, and a few conditions about that. It is not concerned with whether people can afford that. It shouldn't be impossible, as a federation of unions can operate strongly and spread the costs involved, so it is affordable to everyone. But again, that is not the concern of this resolution.

Nothing's stopping them after this has passed.

Sorry, i don't think you answered my question:
Why is the right to go on strike for workers who have not administratively created a union (as many in medium business in economically developping nations) not recognized as for others workers?

Sorry, i don't think you answered my question:
Why is the right to go on strike for workers who have not administratively created a union (as many in medium business in economically developping nations) not recognized as for others workers?

To prevent wildcat strikes. But if you want to grant them that right, you can. It just won't happen on a UN level, because that will make passing this resolution too difficult.

I think his actual concern is irrelevant. This resolution is about the right to form or join a union, and a few conditions about that. It is not concerned with whether people can afford that. It shouldn't be impossible, as a federation of unions can operate strongly and spread the costs involved, so it is affordable to everyone. But again, that is not the concern of this resolution.
So, yet again, the UN is going to be more preoccupied with bestowing the Holy Enchanted RIGHTS! of Awesomeness on people than on actually improving conditions for people. At least this time it's admitting it openly.

To prevent wildcat strikes. But if you want to grant them that right, you can. It just won't happen on a UN level, because that will make passing this resolution too difficult.

Your draft as it's written now, discriminate workers who are not members of Unions. And as I said, in economically developping nations, in particular medium business, many workers have no unions.

I understand your concern about wildcat strikes, so maybe your proposal can mention "exhaustion of conciliation and mediation procedures", "strike ballots" and "notice periods" in order to prevent wildcat strikes instead of discriminating workers who have no Unions.

Your draft as it's written now, discriminate workers who are not members of Unions. And as I said, in economically developping nations, in particular medium business, many workers have no unions.
So you're saying that all workers, everywhere, should have the right to go on strike whether they have formed a union or not?

So you're saying that all workers, everywhere, should have the right to go on strike whether they have formed a union or not?

I think it's better to prevent wildcat strikes by means as "exhaustion of conciliation and mediation procedures", "strike ballots" and "notice periods".

My concerns is that the % of workers in the world who are members of unions, in particular in economically developping nations, is very far from 100%. If in economically developped nations, it may be easy for workers to create or join unions, and my concern is not really for them; it may not be easy (even if legal) for those in medium business in economically developped nations (administrative procedures may be complicated or not well known, or pression may be exerced on workers to prevent them to join)

My concerns is that the % of workers in the world who are members of unions, in particular in economically developping nations, is very far from 100%.
Let me ask again. Are you saying that The United Nations should guarantee the right of all workers to go on strike, whether they have formed a union or not? Yes or no. If your answer is yes, then why don't we dispense with the notion of unions altogether and just have the UN function as one big union?

Let me ask again. Are you saying that The United Nations should guarantee the right of all workers to go on strike, whether they have formed a union or not? Yes or no. If your answer is yes, then why don't we dispense with the notion of unions altogether and just have the UN function as one big union?

I wish you hadn't suggested that. Someone might actually try it.

I wish you hadn't suggested that. Someone might actually try it.
It wouldn't surprise me.

It's not just pay, it's working conditions as well. Health and safety, that kind of stuff.

The working conditions I agree with. However, that is up to the individual nation to enforce, not the UN. The UN has absolutely no business in my citizen's personal matters; Just as the government of Ordo domus Sancta Mari has no business in the citizen's personal matters.

Its not the business of the government to find someone a job that they enjoy/that pays what they want. If they care enough, then they can get up and do it.

Let me ask again. Are you saying that The United Nations should guarantee the right of all workers to go on strike, whether they have formed a union or not? Yes or no. If your answer is yes, then why don't we dispense with the notion of unions altogether and just have the UN function as one big union?


In fact the draft by Groot Gouda, allow every citizen to form a union, and then a blanket right to go on wildcat strike (apart when 3a and 3c)

So what is the difference? if you want to go on wildcat strike, just create a union.

I would prefer to allow strikes when a notice period has been declared and recommand "conciliation and mediation procedures" and "strike ballots "to take place before".

The situation in developping nations is not the same as in Nederland. People without high education in medium factory in economically developping nations don't all have unions. Why their rights are to be differents, if they gave a notice period, organized a ballot and have tryed many conciliation and mediation procedures earlier?

I agree, with you ang Groot, that it's better, when workers have revendications, that they create unions; but it's not because it's better that it's happenning everywere in the world.

Personally, I would prefer for article six to read:

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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, as long as the Union meets minimum democratic requirements as layed down by the governments of individual nations,

The way it was wordered before could mean that as long as the officials are democratically elected in a union, they could just strike willy-nilly. This way, if a country so wishes, they can insist (or not, if they don't want to) not just on democracy within the unions, but for ballots to be taken concerning industrial action.

Personally, I would prefer for article six to read:

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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, as long as the Union meets minimum democratic requires as layed down by the governments of individual nations,

The way it was wordered before could mean that as long as the officials are democratically elected in a union, they could just strike willy-nilly. This way, if a country so wishes, they can insist (or not, if they don't want to) not just on democracy within the unions, but for ballots to be taken concerning industrial action.

I agree.

(Taking a deep breath) I can breathe at last!

I think this has come up before, and I don't want to get tangled in another argument about Labour unions. Quite simply, Optischer dosn't need labour unions. If we did, I'd make sure we still didn't have them.
And now if you please forgive me for my Karl Marx remark, In effect the labour unions propel forward ideas wanted by the bourgouisie to the proletariat and through brainwashing the proletariat the bourgouisie is again the leader.
Egalitarianism is valued in Optischer. I hope you value it too.

So, yet again, the UN is going to be more preoccupied with bestowing the Holy Enchanted RIGHTS! of Awesomeness on people than on actually improving conditions for people. At least this time it's admitting it openly.

You're overreacting. Although, considering some of your responses, you're actually still underreacting. This might be a good sign. Are you secretly supporting this? Anyway, yes, this resolution is concerned with holy enchanted awesome rights. Because it's "human rights". It's useless to add a whole lot of measurements so we will all live in Utopia.

It is improving conditions though. Through unions, people are able to get organized and improve pay and working conditions. They stand stronger against their employers. This might mean they can work shorter hours for more money.

It isn't the only thing that should be done, but it's a way to combat poverty and inequality, and most of all, well-being. A lot of our wellbeing has been achieved through union actions.

Your draft as it's written now, discriminate workers who are not members of Unions. And as I said, in economically developping nations, in particular medium business, many workers have no unions.

Then they should form them.

The situation in developping nations is not the same as in Nederland. People without high education in medium factory in economically developping nations don't all have unions. Why their rights are to be differents, if they gave a notice period, organized a ballot and have tryed many conciliation and mediation procedures earlier?

Oh sure. A bunch of factory workers is unable to form a union, but they can easily do that. Hah. If they can organize a ballot they can organize a union.

The way it was wordered before could mean that as long as the officials are democratically elected in a union, they could just strike willy-nilly. This way, if a country so wishes, they can insist (or not, if they don't want to) not just on democracy within the unions, but for ballots to be taken concerning industrial action.

Clause 6 is only referring to the internal working of a Union. I've added the democracy clause because a few people wanted it (I don't think it's necessary), but it doesn't say anything about when a strike is allowed and when it isn't.

Oh sure. A bunch of factory workers is unable to form a union, but they can easily do that. Hah. If they can organize a ballot they can organize a union.

You may be right in theory, but this is not reality. In economically developping nations (as in China, India or Africa in RL), administrative procedures to create unions may be complicated or not well known, or pression may be exerced on workers to prevent them to join.

Furthermore, you answered that the reason why your draft don't recognize strikes not authorized by unions is to prevent wildcat strikes. Don't you think that asking for notice period and recommanding "conciliation and mediation procedures" and "strike ballots" are better ways to prevent them?

The problem with your actual draft is that
-where it's easy to create unions, there is a blanket right for wildcat strikes
-where it's not easy, they cannot go on strike if they don't have unions.

OOC: An aside concerning voting rights in unions, as I'm changing my mind on this. We don't demand voting rights in nations, nor do we in corporations, so why in unions? Yes, they're meant to represent members' interests, but so are nations and (arguably) businesses. Why then mandate democracy in union?

In short, those who demand greater representation within unions should be prepared for the same demands in nations and business.

OOC: I know it's bad form but...

IC: Bring it on!

OOC: An aside concerning voting rights in unions, as I'm changing my mind on this. We don't demand voting rights in nations, nor do we in corporations, so why in unions? Yes, they're meant to represent members' interests, but so are nations and (arguably) businesses. Why then mandate democracy in union?

In short, those who demand greater representation within unions should be prepared for the same demands in nations and business.

OOC: An excellent point.

OOC: An aside concerning voting rights in unions, as I'm changing my mind on this. We don't demand voting rights in nations, nor do we in corporations, so why in unions? Yes, they're meant to represent members' interests, but so are nations and (arguably) businesses. Why then mandate democracy in union?

In short, those who demand greater representation within unions should be prepared for the same demands in nations and business.


Agreed. After I suggested a clause that would have required unions to meet whatever standards of democracy were set by their national government it occurred to me that maybe this should continue with the words "although any such standards may not be more stringent than those which apply to the national government concerned".

I believe the United Nations was supposed to make a better world for everyone? Obviously this proposal wouldn't by restricitn necessary actions a government can perform to protect it's hardworking citizens.

I believe the United Nations was supposed to make a better world for everyone? Obviously this proposal wouldn't by restricitn necessary actions a government can perform to protect it's hardworking citizens.

Do you even read a word of threads before you fucking post in them?

Yes. I don't just assume they'd make us go to tea parties with pink elephants. I'd also like to know why you are being so... nasty. Have I done something or said something you don't like? Because I'm sorry for causing any offence.

I've changed clause 6 back to the original. Better now?

I still think that countries shoul be allowed to insist on democratic minimums which may or may not be the same as . Without this, you will not have my vote.

Just imagine a scenario where an secretary general calls a strike (without a democratic ballot) which the workers don't want. He could keep the strike going on forever, until the workers are basically starving.

The UN shouldn't insist on democracy, but it should allow individual nations the right to insist on it. I don't want the unions in Cobdenia being mini dictatorships. A dictatorship may not want any democracy in the country.

Thus, I stand by my original alteration.

While we believe that this is, in the main, an excellent proposal, we regret that we cannot support it as it stands. Our only -- but overriding -- objection is to the text of clause 3c:

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

We believe that the criterion contained in clause 3c is entirely too narrow and unrealistic. We believe that nations have a duty to protect the health and safety of the citizenry, not just their lives. Should the proposal be enacted in its present form, we would be forbidden to prohibit strikes that could open our citizens to all sorts of dangers. Only if we could show that the strike directly endangered their lives could we prohibit it. We cannot in good conscience accept that.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Like Ausserland, Ceorana finds significant problems with this draft, enough that we cannot support in its present form. We agree with his problem with clause 3c, and would like to add our own idea:

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,
What do you mean by "not a reason to fire"? Does that mean that the employer cannot fire a worker for going on strike? Or just that if a nation requires valid reason for worker discharge, that striking is not a reason?

If it is the former, Ceorana cannot support. We support the right of businesses to hire and fire as they please, and do not require reasons for other types of discharges. We ask that the words "but it is not a reason to fire a worker" be stricken from the draft.

We apologize if this has already been brought up.

Just imagine a scenario where an secretary general calls a strike (without a democratic ballot) which the workers don't want. He could keep the strike going on forever, until the workers are basically starving.Until they... you know... cross the line and go to work.

How about 'nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions' or something? Leave it to the nations to decide on this issue.

I'd be perfectly happy with that. Indeed, it is exactly what I have been asking for! :p

Labour unions are a waste of time and money. They would only complicate Imperiux, as we listen directly to the workers, and not through some politically correct, no-body wants it but we do so there, over fed union.
In short, NO!

Labour unions are a waste of time and money. They would only complicate Imperiux, as we listen directly to the workers, and not through some politically correct, no-body wants it but we do so there, over fed union.
In short, NO!
If you listen directly to the workers, then there will surely be no need for unions. However, not all nations are as enlightened as Imperiux, hence the need to offer workers a method of defending their interest.

Let me get this straight. We don't have to implement them if our workers don't want to?

But if a small minority did want representation then I'd prefer to take control directly. That way, I could try and solve their problems, without having cash drawn to a union, who will only use it, as done before in Imperiux, to buy better seats for their hordes of penpushers.

I'm still to be convinced.

Let me get this straight. We don't have to implement them if our workers don't want to?

But if a small minority did want representation then I'd prefer to take control directly. That way, I could try and solve their problems, without having cash drawn to a union, who will only use it, as done before in Imperiux, to buy better seats for their hordes of penpushers.

I'm still to be convinced.
Well, you only have to deal with unions if they are there in the first place... and if they're in your country, there's probably a good reason for this. Workers won't, in most cases, follow a union if they can get their demands satisfied directly.

Originally posted by Ecopoeia
Well, you only have to deal with unions if they are there in the first place... and if they're in your country, there's probably a good reason for this. Workers won't, in most cases, follow a union if they can get their demands satisfied directly.

After this infomation we are satisfied it will notDIRECTLY affect Imperiux. But what about global economy? I doubt it won't have strong negative effects on some countries. And then what will happen if there comes another depression? How can I tell my people that the UN is doing the best it can? I'd rather stop the cause, then prevent the spread.

After this infomation we are satisfied it will notDIRECTLY affect Imperiux. But what about global economy? I doubt it won't have strong negative effects on some countries. And then what will happen if there comes another depression? How can I tell my people that the UN is doing the best it can? I'd rather stop the cause, then prevent the spread.
Well, there's the assumption here that strike actions will be long and crippling, which isn't necessarily the case. And, besides, we would argue that an economy that is booming is of little value if the citizens are working long hours in poor conditions for little reward. What use is a strong economy if it doesn't deliver benefits - both tangible and intangible - to the people?

And in retaliation, what good would a crippled economy be to it's citizens if they have excellent benefits, but work little hours to deserve them? I think maybe another proposal could cause this.

And in retaliation, what good would a crippled economy be to it's citizens if they have excellent benefits, but work little hours to deserve them? I think maybe another proposal could cause this.
A union is one agent in determining economic policy. Unions, businesses, government etc will strike the necessary balance if all act sensibly.

This is hardly an extreme proposal - compare it with the recently repealed 'Rights of Labor Unions' resolution (authored by members of my region, as it happens).

That sounded like a good repeal.

I saw your name on UN vlountary help and wondered, do you know how to get acces to UN cards?

That sounded like a good repeal.

I saw your name on UN vlountary help and wondered, do you know how to get acces to UN cards?
Here you go:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454487

Thanks.

Still we're opposed to labour unions. What if they become capable of brainwashing society, which in turn will lead to us pretending to be pro-union zombies, being pro-union zombies, or being fed to pro-union zombies?

I bring out my second weapon of national sovereignity. If the above was to happen, optischer would be restricted from reaching the greater good, and would be forced to damage it's economy. Many other nations could follow this exampl, and then we come to the domino effect. Collapsing economy after collapsing economy after collapsing economy after... It'll end up in a great depression.

Just imagine a scenario where an secretary general calls a strike (without a democratic ballot) which the workers don't want. He could keep the strike going on forever, until the workers are basically starving.

Or, the workers could simply ignore the silly secretary general and continue to work.

I would like to look at it from the other side: an enlightened dictatorial secretary general who continues to negotiate while the workers want a strike.

Because this resolution sets the right to join or form a union, a worker can choose to join a union and choose the right union. If it's led in a maoistic way, then it's that workers responsibility.

I don't think unions should be around. Companies should represent their needs individually, allowing a more careful, cheaper program to be applied. Instead of repairing a one-size fits all policy.

What do you mean by "not a reason to fire"? Does that mean that the employer cannot fire a worker for going on strike? Or just that if a nation requires valid reason for worker discharge, that striking is not a reason?

As I was drafting, I realized that the right to strike is pretty useless if employers can use it as a reason to fire people. That could limit the abilities of people to strike. Which is why I have put it in. Striking should not be a reason to get fired.

Still we're opposed to labour unions. What if they become capable of brainwashing society, which in turn will lead to us pretending to be pro-union zombies, being pro-union zombies, or being fed to pro-union zombies?

Then it would be a great balance against the brainwashing governments and companies, who'll no doubt try the same.

I bring out my second weapon of national sovereignity. If the above was to happen, optischer would be restricted from reaching the greater good, and would be forced to damage it's economy. Many other nations could follow this exampl, and then we come to the domino effect. Collapsing economy after collapsing economy after collapsing economy after... It'll end up in a great depression.

Nonsense. In this thing called "Real Life", we have plenty of unions which don't seem to lead to a great depression. Rather, production keeps going up.

I believe we cannot use real life examples?

How about 'nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions' or something? Leave it to the nations to decide on this issue.

Okay, okay, I'll put it in if it makes people happier. But it's complete nonsense IMO.

Okay, okay, I'll put it in if it makes people happier. But it's complete nonsense IMO.
I don't mind either way, as it goes.

Just one more minor point:

Given that the existence of free unions is incompatible with unrestrained capitalism;
Given that unrestrained capitalism is, no matter how the low the opinion that some people & some nations might have of it, an ideology;
&
Given that the basic rules about UN resolutions say that they can't ban ideologies...
Is this proposal actually 'legal'?

Just one more minor point:

Given that the existence of free unions is incompatible with unrestrained capitalism;
Given that unrestrained capitalism is, no matter how the low the opinion that some people & some nations might have of it, an ideology;
&
Given that the basic rules about UN resolutions say that they can't ban ideologies...
Is this proposal actually 'legal'?

Capitalism as an ideology is unscathed by the existence of unions. The political system much less. If this body has ruled the banning of slavery and torture as not restricting ideology, I fail to see how unions could be a problem.

Capitalism as an ideology is unscathed by the existence of unions. The political system much less. If this body has ruled the banning of slavery and torture as not restricting ideology, I fail to see how unions could be a problem.

OOC: Oh, I understand the comparison, what I don't understand is how most of the various 'Human Rights' & 'Social Justice' resolutions -- even the ones to whose contents neither I personally nor the government of St Edmund has any objections -- got passed without being declared illegal because of that rule...

OOC: Oh, I understand the comparison, what I don't understand is how most of the various 'Human Rights' & 'Social Justice' resolutions -- even the ones to whose contents neither I personally nor the government of St Edmund has any objections -- got passed without being declared illegal because of that rule...

I think the rule is meant to prevent us from illegalising some of the UN Categories for nations. The most tricky one is actually "Furtherment of Democracy," which implies a strong bias in ideology.

I think the rule is meant to prevent us from illegalising some of the UN Categories for nations. The most tricky one is actually "Furtherment of Democracy," which implies a strong bias in ideology.


So although we can't actually ban any particular ideology or system of government outright we can make it effectively impossible to run a nation according to it? H'mm, that's not what St Edmund's lawyers thought that that rule meant when we were deciding about joining the UN... and I'm not at all sure that I like that interpretation, with its scope for tyranny by majority... :(

So although we can't actually ban any particular ideology or system of government outright we can make it effectively impossible to run a nation according to it? H'mm, that's not what St Edmund's lawyers thought that that rule meant when we were deciding about joining the UN... and I'm not at all sure that I like that interpretation, with its scope for tyranny by majority... :(

Nonononono! We are... ahem...

:fluffle: Making the world a better place! :fluffle:

(OOC: Sorry, I am a bit annoyed with the outcome of the last vote.)

(OOC: Sorry, I am a bit annoyed with the outcome of the last vote.)

(OOC: A bit annoyed doesn't even begin to cover how I'm feeling right now... :mad: )

I believe we cannot use real life examples?

I believe we can. At least in the drafting stage. In the formal discussion it's frowned upon and in the resolution itself it's illegal.

The Federation of Southmoon, as a Delegate will support this. As I don't see anything wrong with labor unions, and voted against the repeal, I feel that the resolution has been sufficiently well drafted/been offered valid ideas for editing, that it should be endorsed. :cool:

I believe we can. At least in the drafting stage. In the formal discussion it's frowned upon and in the resolution itself it's illegal.

In the formal dicussions it is legal and the moderators don't ding players for talking about real-life examples on the forums, but the resolution text itself must be devoid of them.

Personally I like formal UN debates to be mixed ... some NS story telling and some RL examples (afterall, I'm also interested in sometimes talking about how the real world is).

If this body has ruled the banning of slavery and torture as not restricting ideology, I fail to see how unions could be a problem.Ex. Post. Facto.

End slavery: Implemented: Tue Jan 21 2003
Citizen Rule Required: Implemented: Fri Apr 4 2003

Moderators didn't exist when these were passed, to say nothing of Game Moderators or the Enodian Laws.1

Or, the workers could simply ignore the silly secretary general and continue to work.

I would like to look at it from the other side: an enlightened dictatorial secretary general who continues to negotiate while the workers want a strike.

Because this resolution sets the right to join or form a union, a worker can choose to join a union and choose the right union. If it's led in a maoistic way, then it's that workers responsibility.

OoC: Back in the Victorian days, when trades unions were beginning to form but were not exactly organised, and led largely by one rabble rouser as opposed to an elected Secretary-General, it wasn't uncommon for "the leader" to just buy a padlock and put it on the gates of the factory making it physically impossible to cross the picket line. And yes, people did starve.

Interestingly enough, this trick is quite commonly used by management unions nowadays. Lock out the workers, force the employers to accede to their demands that way.

IC: seeing as you've delt with my conderns, I will unveil a loophole I've noticed: it appears that there is nothing stopping a government from taxing trades unions 100% of their income...

Ex. Post. Facto.

End slavery: Implemented: Tue Jan 21 2003
Citizen Rule Required: Implemented: Fri Apr 4 2003

Moderators didn't exist when these were passed, to say nothing of Game Moderators or the Enodian Laws.1

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

This is pretty much a current, official ruling, don't you think?

Also, I fail to see how Citizen Rule is relevant to my torture example. If you would ever consider a proposal banning torture illegal under ideological ban, now would be a good time to say it.

Frankly, I am totally puzzled. What exactly were you trying to rebut?

IC: seeing as you've delt with my conderns, I will unveil a loophole I've noticed: it appears that there is nothing stopping a government from taxing trades unions 100% of their income...

There's also nothing preventing governments from dropping 16 tons of cow excretion on a union, but if I have to make clauses for anything that governments can do, I'd go heavily over the word limit.

As it is, I think 8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution, as long as a just balance between employer's and employee's rights is ensured is enough to prevent governments from silly things. Taxing unions at 100% could be considered impairing the guarantees in this resolution (joining and forming a union and going on strike for most people).

OOC: The last bit of clause 8 looks like a loophole. Who's to say what a 'just balance' is? I would omit that, and stick to: "8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution".

OOC: The last bit of clause 8 looks like a loophole. Who's to say what a 'just balance' is? I would omit that, and stick to: "8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution".

Fair enough.

OOC: The last bit of clause 8 looks like a loophole. Who's to say what a 'just balance' is? I would omit that, and stick to: "8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution".

Shhh! Why tell him, instead of leaving the loophole? ;)

Shhh! Why tell him, instead of leaving the loophole?
Because I'm sick and tired of shit debates in the UN forum, and I'd rather they built up the best proposal possible, so we could have a real argument, instead of us pansying round and then sticking our noses up and saying "Hah, we got round it anyway". Loopholes are fun, and I like abusing them, but right now, I'm not in the mood for this sort of legalistic fuckwankery.

Considering the lack of new input, I consider the draft on page 1 as final. It has picked up 47 approvals without active campaigning, so I think it has a very decent chance of getting on the floor and be supported.

Those willing to help campaigning and telegramming can contact me by TG or through the International Democratic Union off-site forum.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Unions,

FURTHER CONVINCED that Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to [i]form or join Unions for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike, independent arbitration is provided whose decision shall be carried out by all parties in the conflict,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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; nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities in being hired, work assignment, promotion and trainings regardless of Union-membership,

8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

Be sure to remove that [i] in clause 1.

Looks good. You have a TG.

Because of the "directly endanger" clause we cannot support this proposal at present. The Knootian government is considering how to vote in the Council of Ministers. These deliberations will take place next friday at the request of the Knootian UN Mission.
-Aram Koopman

Capitalism as an ideology is unscathed by the existence of unions. The political system much less. If this body has ruled the banning of slavery and torture as not restricting ideology, I fail to see how unions could be a problem.

I didn't say just "capitalism", I said "unrestrained capitalism": There's a difference (just as there's a difference between 'socialism' & 'bolshevism'...): I strongly suspect that the governments of those nations that the UN classifies as 'Corporate Police States' would consider legal unions as being against their ideology, and that at least some of the 'Right-Wing Utopias' might do so as well.

I think the rule is meant to prevent us from illegalising some of the UN Categories for nations. The most tricky one is actually "Furtherment of Democracy," which implies a strong bias in ideology.


H'mm, I think that 'FoD' resolutions would probably be okay if they either (1) don't include any clauses stronger than a 'STRONGLY URGES', or (2) confine themselves to helping those nations which claim to be democratic live up to their own principles.

Ex. Post. Facto.

End slavery: Implemented: Tue Jan 21 2003
Citizen Rule Required: Implemented: Fri Apr 4 2003

Moderators didn't exist when these were passed, to say nothing of Game Moderators or the Enodian Laws.1


Okay. The rule against restricting ideology was already in place when St Edmund joined the UN. Would somebody please tell me when it was introduced, so that I can see which resolutions were grandfathered in and which ones were only passed subsequently?

OOC: The way I see it is that you can undermine an ideology by insidious means but not directly and brazenly. If even subtle subversion wasn't acceptable then nothing would get past the mods.

Because I'm sick and tired of shit debates in the UN forum, and I'd rather they built up the best proposal possible, so we could have a real argument, instead of us pansying round and then sticking our noses up and saying "Hah, we got round it anyway". Loopholes are fun, and I like abusing them, but right now, I'm not in the mood for this sort of legalistic fuckwankery.

Fair enough... but terms like the last word that you used make the filter on the computer-system at work block my access to the pages concerned... :-(

OOC: The way I see it is that you can undermine an ideology by insidious means but not directly and brazenly. If even subtle subversion wasn't acceptable then nothing would get past the mods.

H'mm, maybe.
To take another matter that's under consideration as an example, would you call trying to force legalised abortion on all nations regardless of their religious beliefs, and despite the fact that the debate in the forum clearly shows how contentious the matter is, "subtle"?

H'mm, maybe.
To take another matter that's under consideration as an example, would you call trying to force legalised abortion on all nations regardless of their religious beliefs, and despite the fact that the debate in the forum clearly shows how contentious the matter is, "subtle"?
Weeell, maybe 'subtle' isn't strictly speaking the right word to use. Given the presence of an extensive discussion thread on the matter and the regularity of mod presence on this forum, I would hope that any potential breach of the rules would be promptly flagged.

It does show that there's a big grey fog that the rules haven't cleared, which is regrettable.

I am unaware of abortion being a religious ceremony [in which case it would likely be protected under religious freedoms] nor do I see the relevance of the comments thereabouts in this particular debate.

I also call upon the representative of St. Edmund to give me a fair warning whenever he starts yapping about his controversial-stuff-is-ideology-thus-banned argument again so I can go out to get a Pink Bunny Cola. It is quite pointless. It is clearly not applicable. In essence he is suggesting that this political body should not be allowed to discuss political affairs.

-Aram Koopman

To get this one back to the real subject, I still need a few more people to help campaign for this resolution when I submit it. Please TG me if you want this to get passed.

OOC: I'd help you campaign but with the "directly life-threatening" clause I really can't. Good luck tho.

The resolution has been submitted (this time without typo in the title)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Unions,

FURTHER CONVINCED that Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Unions for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike, independent arbitration is provided whose decision shall be carried out by all parties in the conflict,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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; nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities in being hired, work assignment, promotion and trainings regardless of Union-membership,

8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

The resolution has been submitted (this time without typo in the title)
Oh, so that's why it disappeared.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yes, and I'm gratefull to see the mods act quickly on it so the campaigning could continue swiftly.

So all support the Right to Form Unions!

Here's (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Unions) the link, to make it easier to approve.

Current status:74 approvals, needs 49 more.

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 24 2006

Now 75 approvals, plus I've asked my delegate to add theirs.

Ooh, just look at the lovely loophole... ;)

Ooh, just look at the lovely loophole... ;)

Smilies or not, if there's a loophole say it now or shut up. If you're not interested in creating good resolutions you have no business here.

Smilies or not, if there's a loophole say it now or shut up. If you're not interested in creating good resolutions you have no business here.

Well, looks like someone's got his knickers in a wad... :rolleyes:

Smilies or not, if there's a loophole say it now or shut up. If you're not interested in creating good resolutions you have no business here.


Certainly I'm interested in creating good resolutions (Quorum! 'Meteorological Cooperation' has finally made quorum! ;) ), but can you accept that people might honestly disagree with you about what would constitute a "good" resolution in this [or any other] field?

Okay, as I'm in a good mood & feeling unusually helpful...
You included a clause allowing governments to set minimum standards of democracy within unions' constitutions, as I & some other people had asked, but did not include my suggested addition of a rule that those standards couldn't be more stringent than the ones applying to the national government itself. Consequently, any national government that doesn't want to have effective unions within its people can set those standards at very high levels... such as, perhaps, even requiring all important decisions, such as the election of leaders or the approval of strikes, to be made by the unanimous approval of a union's entire membership...

Well, looks like someone's got his knickers in a wad... :rolleyes:

I don't need comments on my knickers. If people come here to comment, they can go "it's crap, I won't support this" and go elsewhere or "I may like this, here are some suggestions". Allowing a resolution to go through knowing there's a loophole is childish, pointless behaviour that doesn't belong here. It's worse than the sniper smilies. I really despise that. I don't mind it if people hate unions or don't want this resolution to pass, but personally I will always mention a loophole if I spot one, even if I don't like a resolution, but at least the author has a chance to make it better.

But if you don't mind that kind of behaviour, fine, that's your choice. I find it unacceptable, and I feel quite strongly about that. I may be harsh in my criticism occasionaly, but I felt this was way below even my standards. There are some principles worth getting upset about.

Certainly I'm interested in creating good resolutions (Quorum! 'Meteorological Cooperation' has finally made quorum! ;) ), but can you accept that people might honestly disagree with you about what would constitute a "good" resolution in this [or any other] field?

Yes I can accept that. But I cannot accept the behaviour you showed with your "nyer nyer I know something you don't know" attitude. Seriously. As I said in my previous post, I know I've been harsh on other people but I would never, ever keep a loophole to myself because I don't like a resolution.

Okay, as I'm in a good mood & feeling unusually helpful...
You included a clause allowing governments to set minimum standards of democracy within unions' constitutions, as I & some other people had asked, but did not include my suggested addition of a rule that those standards couldn't be more stringent than the ones applying to the national government itself. Consequently, any national government that doesn't want to have effective unions within its people can set those standards at very high levels... such as, perhaps, even requiring all important decisions, such as the election of leaders or the approval of strikes, to be made by the unanimous approval of a union's entire membership...

Is that it? That can easily be overcome (smaller unions for example), or even ignore it because it says "insist", not "force".

I was never really fond of that bit anyway, so I might remove it now. A union is democratic anyway, because members can leave for another union if they don't like the policies.

I don't need comments on my knickers. If people come here to comment, they can go "it's crap, I won't support this" and go elsewhere or "I may like this, here are some suggestions". Allowing a resolution to go through knowing there's a loophole is childish, pointless behaviour that doesn't belong here. It's worse than the sniper smilies. I really despise that. I don't mind it if people hate unions or don't want this resolution to pass, but personally I will always mention a loophole if I spot one, even if I don't like a resolution, but at least the author has a chance to make it better.

But if you don't mind that kind of behaviour, fine, that's your choice. I find it unacceptable, and I feel quite strongly about that. I may be harsh in my criticism occasionaly, but I felt this was way below even my standards. There are some principles worth getting upset about.


I think that you might have added that clause while I was away from this thread, because of being too busy with my own proposal to keep up with everything else in the UN forum, rather than while I was still commenting on your earlier drafts...

I was never really fond of that bit anyway, so I might remove it now. A union is democratic anyway, because members can leave for another union if they don't like the policies.Are you actually in a union? Or is this another cultural difference deal?

See... my union has an absolute monopoly where I am. There's only one union "representing" people in my field, so switching unions is most certainly not an option. To say nothing of the fact that since "my" union is a member of the AFL-CIO, any upstart unions would be smacked down with a vengeance. Competition is a four letter word to most unions.

Are you actually in a union? Or is this another cultural difference deal?

See... my union has an absolute monopoly where I am. There's only one union "representing" people in my field, so switching unions is most certainly not an option. To say nothing of the fact that since "my" union is a member of the AFL-CIO, any upstart unions would be smacked down with a vengeance. Competition is a four letter word to most unions.

This proposal gives everybody the right to start a union. So there's your competition.

OOC: And there is some competition here for unions, though not too much. There are 2 large federations, and a few smaller unions started by people who felt they weren't represented by the large unions. The large unions are concerned mainly with the rights of the babyboom-generation, the majority of their members. So people started their own union, and they seem to do all right even though they're not as big by far as the main unions.

Are you actually in a union? Or is this another cultural difference deal?

See... my union has an absolute monopoly where I am. There's only one union "representing" people in my field, so switching unions is most certainly not an option. To say nothing of the fact that since "my" union is a member of the AFL-CIO, any upstart unions would be smacked down with a vengeance. Competition is a four letter word to most unions.

By law, state engineers are unionized (closed shop I guess), however, when we join, we are technically just "fee payers". For an addition few bucks a month we can become actual union members and then we supposedly get a vote on how are fees are used (fee payers don't). However both groups of engineers may protest any particular line item expenditure of the union and get their proportional amount refunded (which of course means spending more state money to get your fraction of a cent for which politician not of your choice the union decided to grease).

There are jobs that I personally believe should be unionized ... jobs like mine, which are really open to primarily people whom have graduate degrees and professional licenses probably shouldn't be unionized.

So I feel workers should have the right to unionize, but I do not support closed shops like my office. My union hasn't really done much for me, but it has resulted in some major boneheads staying on in state service. By boneheads, I'm talking about two co-workers whom couldn't even piece together a Big-Mac if called upon to do so. (Though there is a reason the two of them got hired in the first place -- a reason I disagree with, but won't rant on here.)

How far along is the proposal? Because despite my OOC opinions on unions, I don't see this resolution as FORCING a system like California has on nations. As Groot Gouda pointed out, if unions don't have a monopoly, they will have to fight to prove their worth to workers. :)

All it needs is seven more endorsements!



ENDORSE IT

Four to go

Don't forget this (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Unions) loverly link for approvals.

Current status: 120 approvals, needs 4 more.

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 24 2006.

It's in queue!

Congratulations! :D, and similar n00bish signs of enthusiasm!

And now, The Debate ...

Congratulations! :D, and similar n00bish signs of enthusiasm!

And now, The Debate ...

Not worth starting the debate yet. It's still going to be some time before it reaches the floor.

I know, but I've created a new thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470621) anyway. Saves people 16 pages of reading material.

I was hoping you'd do that, but I *also* was hoping you'd make a poll asking UN Members and UN Delegates if they voted yes, no, or abstained (viewable list), so that I could have included your resolution in a UN forum vs. overall voting trends analysis. :) Congrats on reaching quorum!