NationStates Jolt Archive

Author: Groot Gouda
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description:
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.

Drafting discussion: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466268

Labor Unions, though good in principal, are detrimental to the economy. A requirement of global Labor Unions would result in a wide-spread economic downturn and a world-wide depression.

Instead, the Empire of Dougotopolis moves for creating a non-manditory global Workers Union which will be a suitible global workforce for participating countries.

Labor Unions, though good in principal, are detrimental to the economy. A removal of global Labor Unions would result in a wide-spread economic downturn and a world-wide depression.

Unions focus on workers rights. This increases minimum wagem, working conditions and other things. This becomes a huge strain. It becomes CORPORATINS VS UNIONS. Everyone knows that if corporations lose, so does the economy.

Ecactly. That is why Labor Unions can only exist in Socialist countries which are heavily reliant on capital from Capitalist Anti-Enviromental Anti-Union Pro-Child labor nations. A global union that is optional would help the socialists, while leaving the right-wing countries untouched.

Ceorana supports this. The right to assemble and advocate collectively against injustice is a basic human right. We are recovering from a crippled economy from a cruel communist era. This has forced us to make many sacrifices of our environment, sacrifices that we hope to rectify with the benefits of our improved economy. However, we must not forget those who are left behind as we move forward to free trade, democracy and capitalism. Therefore, unions should be supported, and Groot Gouda is going in the right direction with this resolution.

Plus, he's my regionmate. It would be cruel not to support his proposal. :p

Congratulations on reaching quorum, it will be a pleasure to rectify the wrong turn that the UN made when it repealed "The Rights of Labor Unions."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
President of Flibbleite UN Representative Union #1

Although unions put some restrictions on the rights of both corporations and their members, they act as a counterbalance against those who would unnecessarily and unjustly restrict the rights of workers. This is an extension of freedom of association, in that workers have the right to band together against their employers in a dispute.

Increasing working condition standards, wages, and decreasing work hours, among other things, can hurt the economy, yes. However, it also makes everything better for the average person. A powerful economy does little good if the average person is barely making rent each month and is stuck eating bologna sandwiches every day (no offense to those who like bologna).

Supporting this proposal is important for the average worker.

This proposal does not weaken the economy, it merely lessens profits made by the top percentages of the income brackets, and spreads it around the middle and lower classes. Passing this resolution will allow unions to strike to better working conditions, improved wages, and worker-employer relationships. When has it ever been to the benefit of society to allow the middle and lower classes to be abused?

It becomes CORPORATINS VS UNIONS. Everyone knows that if corporations lose, so does the economy.

Southmoon is a very pro-union, high standards of working conditions, anti-child labor, and heavy government regulations nation, yet it has an economy categorized as "Thriving"

Ecactly. That is why Labor Unions can only exist in Socialist countries which are heavily reliant on capital from Capitalist Anti-Enviromental Anti-Union Pro-Child labor nations. A global union that is optional would help the socialists, while leaving the right-wing countries untouched.

Yet again. How can a large nation that enacts laws protecting the enviornment and child labor support itself and maintain a high economy if this is true?


Please, vote for this resolution. It benefits everyday people, and will raise morale in UN member nations if the work force is fairly treated.

The Commonwealth of Atraxes will support this lucid and important resolution. While noting the importance of a healthy economy, we see no reason why this resolution would hamper a free and just nation. We also feel the repeal of resolution #38 leaves the door open for corrupt exploitation of the common peoples and this must be righted as soon as possible.

Tarquinius Focht
Envoy to the U.N.

Labor Unions, though good in principal, are detrimental to the economy. A requirement of global Labor Unions would result in a wide-spread economic downturn and a world-wide depression.

Because workers can possibly get more time off to spend money and make more money perhaps? Or because unions and governments can negotiate reasonable wage rises, preventing conflicts getting out of hand?

Be glad that with unions, workers are better represented and can be negotiated with. Otherwise, all you're left with is wildcat strikes, and those aren't any better for the economy.

I voted against (in the poll) because I think proposals for national trade federations and international trade federations should be seperate, and a lot of the mandates here are a little...meddling? I mean a proposal which was very specific in allowing workers to form unions, but let those people decide a lot of the specifics about their labor union, I'd likely Abstain or vote For. But with this, it's almost saying (upon my cursory reading) "your nation must arbitrarily have your trade unions 'this way', no other variation will do". Not exactly that, but I get a little of that vibe--though that might just be my indegestion.

I also don't like the justifications set forth in the preamble. They're just a little too vaporous. And if we're 'regretting' a repealed resolution then why express a desire to improve upon it, as we wouldn't have a chance to improve upon it unless it were repealed?

Unless it's a "you whores tried to screw us with lemons, but we'll make lemonade in your face, Hahahaha!!" sort of clause. In which case we should break out the Tequila right about now.

Take a look at world industry in RL. The countries with less unemployment often are the ones with more industry, and the ones with mroe industry are the ones with fewer unions. The Ultra-Capitalist PRC (if you still belive that China is communist, you need to go there) has the strongest industry on the planet, and labor unions are non-existant. Unions reorganize the system so that the lower ranked have more power than the higher ranked. But this is illogical; many of those are in the higher ranks simply because they have shown the value to be there, or they have a higher intelligence/education. So do you want your ineducated workers running things, or a highly educated Bougiouse?

I voted against (in the poll) because I think proposals for national trade federations and international trade federations should be seperate, and a lot of the mandates here are a little...meddling? I mean a proposal which was very specific in allowing workers to form unions, but let those people decide a lot of the specifics about their labor union, I'd likely Abstain or vote For. But with this, it's almost saying (upon my cursory reading) "your nation must arbitrarily have your trade unions 'this way', no other variation will do". Not exactly that, but I get a little of that vibe--though that might just be my indegestion.

The thing is, the most practical solution is unions. If it wasn't written like this it'd have been toothless. That doesn't mean no other variations are allowed, but they co-exist next to any union that your workers might want to create. It doesn't say "form unions", but rather gives people the right to do so. If you have a better solution, that's fine and you can implement that, as long as it doesn't deny people the right to form a union.

The most practical solution is an increase in economic spending derived from greater international competition, and when corporations have to care more about their "workers" than their buisness, then we have lost the overall aim of the economy.

Take a look at world industry in RL. The countries with less unemployment often are the ones with more industry,

Nonsense.

and the ones with mroe industry are the ones with fewer unions. The Ultra-Capitalist PRC (if you still belive that China is communist, you need to go there) has the strongest industry on the planet, and labor unions are non-existant.

And a large proportion of the people is poor, kids are sent to work rather than university to make money for their parents, families are separated, working conditions are extremely bad.

In my RL nation people are among the happiest in the world, among the healthiest in the world, and wellbeing is at a very high level. And we've got unions.

Unions reorganize the system so that the lower ranked have more power than the higher ranked. But this is illogical; many of those are in the higher ranks simply because they have shown the value to be there, or they have a higher intelligence/education. So do you want your ineducated workers running things, or a highly educated Bougiouse?

You are making so little sense here I'm not even going to try to explain this to you. What the hell does all this have to do with the my proposal?

The most practical solution is an increase in economic spending derived from greater international competition, and when corporations have to care more about their "workers" than their buisness, then we have lost the overall aim of the economy.

Economy has no aim. People work, make money, and use that to live a happy life. A happy life is the aim. So it's good if companies are forced to look after their workers. Without workers, there is no economy, no money, no happiness.

This is true. But organized unions give the workers too much power, power that would best be kept in the hands of the corperations themselves.

Without workers, there is no economy, no money, no happiness.

True, but also:
Without economy, there is no workers, no money, no happiness

It's not cause or effect, it's cause AND effect

Welcome in a non-B&W world.

And without money, there are no workers, no economy, no happiness.
And without happiness...

Ahem. Carry on. :p

This is true. But organized unions give the workers too much power, power that would best be kept in the hands of the corperations themselves.

If I am to understand the transitivity of your statement, you would suggest giving the corporations too much power? I don't see how giving anyone too much of anything is a good thing.

Yeah, that was a little extreme, but here's a more moderate counterargument: I don't see how giving the workers power over their own fates is a terrible thing. That is what a union does: it gives the worker more power in the workplace, so that they are not caught under the dictatorial power of the corporation. I, personally, would prefer to have an organization that can fight for me against an impersonal, all-powerful employer rather than be caught alone and cut off from my fellow workers.

Without economy, there is no workers, no money, no happiness

Absolutely true. However, unions do not destroy the economy. They change its internal dynamics, but they do not stop all business. It is no secret that sheer production numbers can be higher in non-unionized countries, such as the RL-PRC, but this gives no consideration to the rights of the worker or the happiness of the people. All that is important is that a few high ranking company and government officers get a lot of money. The standard of living is still higher in countries with unions.

Also note that in the RL-PRC, 3/4 of the people (that's 900 MILLION people, about the population of North America and the EU combined) live in the countryside as non-unionized agricultural labourers. Also note that these people live in abject poverty, and they have no access to the benefits seen in the cities. While this partly shows trouble with central planning, it also shows the ails of a people who have no say in their workplace, much as any other worker without a union.

I believe in direct worker ownership not unionism for the most part. It is more effective than unions and forces people who work in an organization to invest in it.

First off, I should apologize for my last post, Groot Gouda. It was made in haste: I only glanced over the proposal and wrote too authoritatively for the amount of observation I'd made and understanding I had on this proposal. I may or may not have real concerns, but my last post was hardly a good vehicle for them.

The thing is, the most practical solution is unions. If it wasn't written like this it'd have been toothless. That doesn't mean no other variations are allowed, but they co-exist next to any union that your workers might want to create. I won't disagree that in the current workplace unions are commonplace, and very practical (or often very practical). In Powerhungry Chipmunks, there have been unions for a long time and there will continue to be unions for a long time, barring unforeseen circumstances. I will not disagree that union help workers and can keep a business from abusing its workers. I agree with all of that. Hence I said (though I don't think it came out right) I would vote For or Abstain on ‘more basic union legislation’ (or somesuch).

What I said about "getting too specific" was based on misunderstanding, mine, of some of your clauses. Reading through now, I'm not sure I hold the same "this proposal mandates a certain type of union that isn't necessarily the best" opinion. I mean, before I thought it wasn't allowing the workers, unions and nations to decide which were the best way to work union specifics (like how many days X strike could last before arbitration started to try to rope in both sides to talk, etc.). But I understand a lot of the clauses that made me think that before as just etching out an outline for "what a union is", now, rather than that ultra-specific stuff that I thought I read in my brief glances before.

I still think the preamble is a little...non sequitur--at least the first preambulary clause doesn't seem to explain well how this proposal feels about the previous one. And I still have my reservations about Clause #1. I think it's a little bit too much to say that every Union has a right to form international trade unions. But I don't really know much about that topic, and will have to do some research to flesh out any objection I have.

I think it's a little bit too much to say that every Union has a right to form international trade unions. But I don't really know much about that topic, and will have to do some research to flesh out any objection I have.

I've already expressed (in the drafting thread) my concern about allowing such international links for the unions that we'll be forced to allow in our armed forces...

I've already expressed (in the drafting thread) my concern about allowing such international links for the unions that we'll be forced to allow in our armed forces...
And what was the response to such concernd, you devil, you?

(it was your six hunder and sixty-sixth post, eek!)

I still think the preamble is a little...non sequitur--at least the first preambulary clause doesn't seem to explain well how this proposal feels about the previous one.

I can understand that, but I don't think it matters much. In the end, it's the executive clauses that determine what the resolution does; the preamble is merely to clarify things and get a good run-up to the rest.

And I still have my reservations about Clause #1. I think it's a little bit too much to say that every Union has a right to form international trade unions. But I don't really know much about that topic, and will have to do some research to flesh out any objection I have.

It's mainly a matter of international cooperation, which is certainly necessary in a globalised world with 35.000 UN members. There have been comments on the fact that armed forces may also join one, but that's a matter that nations can handle themselves. If they're so paranoid, they're hiring the wrong people into the army.

And what was the response to such concernd, you devil, you?

An "I'll think about that point", if memory serves me correctly...

Sorry to gravedig, but I just noticed:

Why is this Human Rights? Should it not be Social Justice?

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,


Clause one kills it for me. While I have no problem with a national union(like the Teamsters, UAW,UMW,ect), I cannot support international union organizations(Historically they were fronts for radicals and anarchists).
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

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,

This gives me the most concern with the resolution because it is a subtle one way door trap. Every citizen has the right to form or join a union. But do they have a right not to join a union? Or disolve a union already formed?

In practice the answer is no. In some cases union invlvement is mandtory if you want employment. You have no say in whether a portion of your salary has to go to the union even though the union may not always be there to support you when you need it. (Evil RL reference: Read J.C. Watts "What Color is Conserative" about his experiences with the CFL player's union.)

On the other hand I'm going to disagree with the honorable senator Horatio Sulla. I don't think the international union is per se a danger. Yes some international unions were fronts but other unions have managed to cross national borders establshing uniform standards, reducing cross border tensions and competitions. My biggest concern is that this is a pyramid game where union bosses care only for getting more members under them to pay dues and pay only lip service to their members. Unions are typically a monopoly, if you don't like your current union, tough luck. It's not like you can switch to a different union.

This gives me the most concern with the resolution because it is a subtle one way door trap. Every citizen has the right to form or join a union. But do they have a right not to join a union? Or disolve a union already formed?

In practice the answer is no. In some cases union invlvement is mandtory if you want employment. You have no say in whether a portion of your salary has to go to the union even though the union may not always be there to support you when you need it. (Evil RL reference: Read J.C. Watts "What Color is Conserative" about his experiences with the CFL player's union.)

On the other hand I'm going to disagree with the honorable senator Horatio Sulla. I don't think the international union is per se a danger. Yes some international unions were fronts but other unions have managed to cross national borders establshing uniform standards, reducing cross border tensions and competitions. My biggest concern is that this is a pyramid game where union bosses care only for getting more members under them to pay dues and pay only lip service to their members. Unions are typically a monopoly, if you don't like your current union, tough luck. It's not like you can switch to a different union.

Please. You should really take a reading course before posting. It is not the first time you come out with something like this.

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,

Sorry to gravedig, but I just noticed:

Why is this Human Rights? Should it not be Social Justice?
.

Please. You should really take a reading course before posting. It is not the first time you come out with something like this.
It's not a reading course I need. Perhaps I need to take the "Interperting the Law the Fonzoland way." In any company there will be union/non-union workers. Both should be afforded the same rights. One question is that of the definition of "work assignment." My question, which is not addressed here is whether or not you can "leave" the union. Depending on how you interperet this clause things can get really bizzare. If the definition of "work assignment" means that any position can be filled by either union or non union workers then does that mean the CEO can be a union member? What about the managers? Could a company force a union out by encouraging a significant number of non union workers to apply to the company? How effective is the union's power of strike when half or more of the workers at all levels are non union?

In any event, my question remains unanswered because while the law allows you the right to join a union, it does not allow you to quit one. Sure you can choose not to join. Never the less the pressure to join would not come from the company (who would rather have more non union members than union) but from the union itself, and this clasuse does not address this in the slightest.

Perhaps you should take a course in reading forum posts because you really did not address the question I had, but instead addressed a similiar question.

It's not a reading course I need. Perhaps I need to take the "Interperting the Law the Fonzoland way."

Quoting our friends, those damned Ausserlander one-armed dwarves, the law means what the law says. I have no qualms attacking people who do not interpret the law the Fonzolandian way, but this is not the case. This is a clear-cut case of misrepresenting objective statements.

In any company there will be union/non-union workers. Both should be afforded the same rights. One question is that of the definition of "work assignment." My question, which is not addressed here is whether or not you can "leave" the union.

And you keep insisting on tangents, rather than on the substantive issue at hand. Oh my God, there is nothing in this law saying if people are allowed or not to leave the union! That is such a huge freaking loophole!!! May I point out that this clause leaves the matter specifically to national law:

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.

Granting or not the right to leave an association does not impair the guarantees of this resolution in any way. Therefore, you decide. Yey.

Depending on how you interperet this clause things can get really bizzare. If the definition of "work assignment" means that any position can be filled by either union or non union workers then does that mean the CEO can be a union member? What about the managers?

Nothing in this text prevents managers and CEOs from being unionised, as it shouldn't. But this text guarantees the right of workers to join a different union from their bosses, which is arguably in their best interests. I will ignore the subtle hint of semantic wanking.

Could a company force a union out by encouraging a significant number of non union workers to apply to the company? How effective is the union's power of strike when half or more of the workers at all levels are non union?

Workers cannot be discriminated against for not being unionised. 'Encouraging' only non-members to apply is clear discrimination. The law says specifically "non-members and members should have equal opportunities in being hired." Alas, I commend you for finding a refreshing new way of reading that sentence. In addition, workers are given the right to unionise at any time after being hired. Your point denotes a severe inability to, err, read the law the Fonzolandian way. As I told you before.

In any event, my question remains unanswered because while the law allows you the right to join a union, it does not allow you to quit one. Sure you can choose not to join. Never the less the pressure to join would not come from the company (who would rather have more non union members than union) but from the union itself, and this clasuse does not address this in the slightest.

Nothing in the law disallows workers from leaving unions, see above.

Granting the right to decide on union membership protects workers from union pressure, peer pressure, employer pressure, and government pressure alike. If you want this pressure to exist, for sure you can twist the text enough to create loopholes. But if you argue that the resolution actually creates the pressures, or forbids governments to legislate against said pressures, then you are sadly mistaken. At least if you read it the Fonzolandian way.

Are you essentially accusing the UN of not holding your hand while you implement the broad principles legislated here into national law? Are you aware that you are always free to add as much detail as you want in national legislation, provided you do not contradict UN resolutions? Are you confessing that your government is so inept that, intentionally or otherwise, it will botch every legislative act outside international law, allowing Tzorslandian unions to destroy the economy?

Heck, we are not even supporting this resolution. But none of your arguments holds water. Why don't you play with the strike clause instead? (hint hint)

Perhaps you should take a course in reading forum posts because you really did not address the question I had, but instead addressed a similiar question.

Perhaps I should. I can always learn something new, and improve in some ways. Can you?

OOC: I told you once before, the word is delegate, not deligate. You will be a lot more credible in exchanging reading course invitations if you change your sig.

Direct employee ownership is better than unions. It is more stable, more profitable, and does not pit management against union members. Both partial ownership and complete ownership are a better option than unions.

This needs to be amended, where companies are owned directly by employees there is no need for unions. It becomes a strange piece of legislation when a cooperative, syndicate, or employee owned company is forced to create a union.

Erm, was the poll for this topic here all along, and I just never noticed it, or did a mod add it later?

IC: To the Fonzoland delegation: It's "Ausserlander."

Erm, was the poll for this topic here all along, and I just never noticed it, or did a mod add it later?

IC: To the Fonzoland delegation: It's "Ausserlander."

We thank the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny for his concern over the proper method of referring to our nation. He is quite correct that we prefer Ausserlander. However, we are not offended by Ausserlandian. We even tolerate Ausserlandish. We tend to draw the line at "those damned dwarves", but we usually don't have a snit fit about it. To quote an ancient Ausserlander saying:

"You can call me anything you want, as long as it's not late for dinner."

:D

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Direct employee ownership is better than unions. It is more stable, more profitable, and does not pit management against union members. Both partial ownership and complete ownership are a better option than unions.

This needs to be amended, where companies are owned directly by employees there is no need for unions. It becomes a strange piece of legislation when a cooperative, syndicate, or employee owned company is forced to create a union.
I agree with the first paragraph of your statement. However, unions only come about from this resolution when requested by employees. Your perfectly functioning worker-owned co-operatives won't be affected by the legislation. The resolution will, however, provide protection for those who live in countries less respectful of workers' rights.

For the time being the co-operative vision is not established in the United Nations. Please do not sacrifice the rights of millions and millions of workers on the altar of your ideology; such an action is selfish and anti-internationalist to an unacceptable degree.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

We thank the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny for his concern over the proper method of referring to our nation. He is quite correct that we prefer Ausserlander. However, we are not offended by Ausserlandian. We even tolerate Ausserlandish. We tend to draw the line at "those damned dwarves", but we usually don't have a snit fit about it. To quote an ancient Ausserlander saying:

"You can call me anything you want, as long as it's not late for dinner."What about "pompous dwarvish scum"? Is that aceptable? If not, we'll have to make a quick edit on all our Kenny-Ausserlander diplomatic stuff. :eek:

[OOC tangent]

The beauty (and occasionally, the horror) of free market economics is that, with few restrictions, it tends to automatically select the best structure, size, scope, and strategy for firms. Call it economic Darwinism if you will. Now, if employee ownership is indeed the best and more profitable system, employee owned firms dominate the market - this is the case, for instance, with many law firms, consultancies, software houses, and investment funds. Those tend to have a few things in common: small number of employees, homogeneous skills/education across all ranks, and horizontal structure.

However, to suggest that, for instance, a large industrial corporation like GM could be efficiently run on employee ownership, and would even be more profitable in that manner, is highly dubious and empirically refuted.

Now, feel free to believe that social justice blah blah opressed classes blah blah blah blah capitalism=slavery blah blah make private ownership immoral. Just don't pretend it is less profitable just because you dislike it.

[/OOC tangent]

EDIT, IC: We removed the offensive line, with unqualified apologies to the Ausserlander delegation.

What about "pompous dwarvish scum"? Is that aceptable? If not, we'll have to make a quick edit on all our Kenny-Ausserlander diplomatic stuff. :eek:

No problem. At least "pompous" and "dwarvish" are accurate. Two out of three ain't bad, especially for a Kennyite. Anyway, we always consider the source.

:p :D

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: I told you once before, the word is delegate, not deligate. You will be a lot more credible in exchanging reading course invitations if you change your sig.
:eek: But I did change it. The moment you first mentioned it. And I checked the just before I hit reply. Reading is fundamental. Typing, especially in this tiny little edit box where a single senence typically goes over two or three lines is somthing I fear I shall never be perfect in. That's my Mr Gates and me have this love hate relationship. OTOH I've been typing since I was 5! You don't want to know what year that was. :cool:

Erm, was the poll for this topic here all along, and I just never noticed it, or did a mod add it later?



Damn, you Kennyites are slow... :p

Damn, you Kennyites are slow... :pOr we have next to zero interest in this topic. :rolleyes:

Typing, especially in this tiny little edit box where a single senence typically goes over two or three lines is somthing I fear I shall never be perfect in.I do my sig editing in the Mod CP, so it may be different, but I have a pair of tiny links on the bottom of the box to expand and reduce the box's size. I usually click a couple dozen times so that the box nearly fills the screen before editing.

OTOH I've been typing since I was 5! You don't want to know what year that was.1995? :p

I do my sig editing in the Mod CP, so it may be different, but I have a pair of tiny links on the bottom of the box to expand and reduce the box's size. I usually click a couple dozen times so that the box nearly fills the screen before editing.

1995? :p

We playing The Year Is Right? We have to guess the closest without going over? I say 2000! :p

Sorry to gravedig, but I just noticed:

Why is this Human Rights? Should it not be Social Justice?

It gives the right to do something. So HR seems more fitting. There's no direct influence on income distribution. There's also working conditions.

This needs to be amended, where companies are owned directly by employees there is no need for unions. It becomes a strange piece of legislation when a cooperative, syndicate, or employee owned company is forced to create a union.

There is a popular story about a farm and pigs in Groot Gouda. And that story tells us the moral that an employee-owned company isn't a guarantee that a union isn't necessary.

In any case, whether a union is necessary or not is up to the workers. Nobody is forced to join a union by this resolution. If there's no demand, this resolution doesn't change a thing.

Erm, was the poll for this topic here all along, and I just never noticed it, or did a mod add it later?

I added it a bit later on.

"You can call me anything you want, as long as it's not late for dinner."

Oi, lawn ornament, have some cheese! :p

Oi, lawn ornament, have some cheese! :p

[Munches cheese contentedly. Not bad.] :D

*deep breath*

WHY IS THIS HUMAN RIGHTS NOT SOCIAL JUSTICE?

Because some people feel that the right to unionize is an er ... right?

After all who ever said a union was interested in justice. Even social justice.

Unions force companies to increase wages. This in turn requires companies to pass the cost to the consumers. This includes the poor who can barely afford the goods and services in the first place; being forced into even greater poverty because of the greed of the unions. IS THAT SOCIAL JUSTICE?

Gruen, you missed the bold. :D

Before voting, just ask yourself some questions. Why don't, say, computer programmers form a labor union? Why don't... hmmmm... university professors or major scientists do so? Have you ever heard of corporate managers striking?

Please note all these people aren't employers, they're employed for money just like these "workers". But for some reason they don't need such an anti-employer support from the government.

So I'll tell you the reason. Any of those hightly-qualified people costs too much _and_ it would be hard to find a replacement for any of them if they decide to change their job. Possible but hard. And it's not a problem at all for a high-qualified one to find a new job if an "evil" employer fires him/her, so they just don't need statement like that "strike isn't a reason to fire".

Who DOES need such a statement? Only these loosers who didn't want to learn or didn't have enough brains to learn. There are millions of them whom the economy actually don't need. We could kill a half of them and still don't see any negative effect for the economy. If there's no right for a strike, then an employer can fire all the strikers and find new staff in a day.

As the technical progress goes on, there is lesser and lesser need in such people. But they don't want to disappear. They want us to feed them, to give them welfare, free medicine, etc. Why should we?! They don't do anything useful for us!

Stop this and better make some _anti_-worker resolutions.

Before voting, just ask yourself some questions. Why don't, say, computer programmers form a labor union? Why don't... hmmmm... university professors or major scientists do so? Have you ever heard of corporate managers striking?

Being a computer programmer IRL (I have to stop using all these fantasy references in my posts ... everyone tells me I spend too much time in this fantasy "Real Word") and for the live of me I still don't know a good reason why we shouldn't have a guild. (As opposed to a union, although it is a minor terminology thing.) Reporters have a guild. I'm not exactly sure of the status of university professors, although with TIAA/CREF in the united states, they had one of the best retirement systems pre 401-K plan era. And they have tenure systems, which is just as good as a union. Corporate managers, on the other hand, tend to be under tighter control by the companies, and thus not only can't they form a union, they have to work quadruple time every time the union goes on strike. (Without overtime I should point out since almost all corporate managers are paid a fixed annual sallary not a per hour wage.)

The first unions were actually the technical people, people who had the ability to do what you say is the reason for not having a union, threaten to walk out and cause the company much hardship because it really is impossible to replace them on short notice. Sometimes the magic worked, and sometimes (in the case of the air traffic controllers under President Regan) it did not. It required a lot of laws in order to get the replacable workers the right to strike without the company simply finding another group of slave wage labor to fill in.

Going back to fantasy there is a major strike going on that gets the local news where I live. This involves a company that makes major military vechicles. These are not just throw away workers, but people with solid and needed skills. They are on strike because the company wants to wash its hands from the problem of rising medical costs, passing it on to the employees who are in a much less position to do anything about the problem. That's the purpuse of unions, and when they work, we are all better off.

Unions are an important part of fair wages, but lets take a look at what unions have done in a real nation - the USA.
Outsourcing is a big problem that many people seem to be complaining about (and rightly so), but outsourcing wouldn't be a problem if unions didn't demand quite as much as they do. That is the biggest problem with unions.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against establishing the right to form unions - the right to stop working all at the same time and make a fuss. I do have a problem with preventing business owners from firing someone who refuses to work AND refuses to let someone else work in their place. We all aught to have a right to stop working whenever we want to, but we do NOT have a right to be immune from being fired for doing so.

Enacting this resolution will ultimately result in a blow to our economies (the business won't make as much money), but it won't even accomplish it's intended goal of helping the average worker because of outsourcing. This resolution bring about serious disadvantages without bringing about any advantages, and that is why Saintlyland and the Region of Republicans stands AGAINST this resolution

We find this legislation empowers labour unions above and beyond the legalization of collective bargaining for concerned sectors of our labour economy. Namely clause 1# states: "right of Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally". It is clear that this language wishes to see labour unions empowered to the level of Nation State status, and within nations themselves have power over governments. We would like to remind our fellow nations of NationStates that labour unions are not controlled by democratically elected officers. We will not support this anti-democratic resolution and urge all other Nations in NationStates to carefully consider the implications as well.

We vote AGAINST.

Before voting, just ask yourself some questions. Why don't, say, computer programmers form a labor union? Why don't... hmmmm... university professors or major scientists do so? Have you ever heard of corporate managers striking?

Computer programming industry has recorded some of the worst modern day worker rights abuses and there are rumblings of people wanting to form unions/guilds/whatever. These abuses range from 100hr workweeks to forcing people to stay at work when they aren't working for various reasons. I think my favorite story comes from British Colombia, Canada where Electronic Arts, before moving heavily into the region, pushed the BC government into passing legislation making it so that programmers were no longer eligable for overtime pay. EA has a less than wonderful reputation in the industry.

It's actually humorous the situation programmers are in. Histoically, when an area of industry is in high demand, you often don't need unions as the workers are given better conditions to work with. However, programmers are in such high demand that, while they get some rather nice salaries overall, they end up suffering from abuses because so much work needs to be done. Someone mentioned outsourcing - and actually, it's probably a good thing that some programming jobs are going overseas - the American economy just doesn't have enough people to fill those and the other jobs in the industry (the others generally being not pure code and, often, not reasonably outsourcable).

Professers was already touched upon, and I have another note to make about managers. When a person signs up for a job, his conditions are normally dictated to him. He might barter a bit here or there, but overall, his leeway isn't much. A manager, on the other hand, is given incredible power in the hiring process, more so than the average person. The manager signs a contract with the employer detailing his responsibilities and whatnot. For 2 of my 3 jobs, I signed a piece of paper saying I accepted a job offer, nothing more. I didn't get any bartering power. My third job was a government job and while I wasn't in any union, their guidelines for the job were set by the federal government so they had to have a contract. This, too, I didn't get any say over. When you have a union, they have the job of negotiating a contract for everyone they represent. As such, they are given much more bartering power and can actually negotiate a contract.

I'm not voting for, it doesn't allow workers to strike unless the strike was planned by the union, people should be able to strike at all times!!!

I believe this is an individual nation issue and should be worked out among the individual governments, employers and and employees. I will be voting 'no'.

Without the Labor, where would the coporate be?

My point exactly, therefore there must be a blance between Yin and Yang
in everything... benefiting the workers and there condition will prompt them to work harder, with the proper respect everything goes well.

*deep breath*

WHY IS THIS HUMAN RIGHTS NOT SOCIAL JUSTICE?

Because it grants a right.

Without the Labor, where would the coporate be?

My point exactly, therefore there must be a blance between Yin and Yang
in everything... benefiting the workers and there condition will prompt them to work harder, with the proper respect everything goes well.
Exactly, and creating a proposition that will hurt corporations without helping the workers, is, simply put, not creating that balance

Before voting, just ask yourself some questions. Why don't, say, computer programmers form a labor union? Why don't... hmmmm... university professors or major scientists do so? Have you ever heard of corporate managers striking?

Please note all these people aren't employers, they're employed for money just like these "workers". But for some reason they don't need such an anti-employer support from the government.

Yeah, so? If they don't need it, they don't need to organize themselves. And if they do, they're allowed to. They can only benefit of the situation.

(and although higher educated people are fully capable of representing themselves, that doesn't stop them all of being a union member. I know quite a few RL union members who have a master degree).

Who DOES need such a statement? Only these loosers who didn't want to learn or didn't have enough brains to learn. There are millions of them whom the economy actually don't need. We could kill a half of them and still don't see any negative effect for the economy.

Oh I see. Sorry for responding. I thought you were being serious. But you're not.

I believe in direct worker ownership not unionism for the most part. It is more effective than unions and forces people who work in an organization to invest in it.
Then that is what your nation should do. This resolution (as I read it) in no way restricts you from doing what you want to, so long as the right to form a union is granted and guaranteed. If the way you choose to protect your nation's workers is through worker ownership, knock yourself out; this resolution doesn't stop you.

Unions are an important part of fair wages, but lets take a look at what unions have done in a real nation - the USA.
Outsourcing is a big problem that many people seem to be complaining about (and rightly so), but outsourcing wouldn't be a problem if unions didn't demand quite as much as they do. That is the biggest problem with unions.

Ah, but you see, in those nations there are hardly any unions. But by allowing them to form unions as well, wages might go up and it doesn't pay to outsource anymore :)

I do have a problem with preventing business owners from firing someone who refuses to work AND refuses to let someone else work in their place. We all aught to have a right to stop working whenever we want to, but we do NOT have a right to be immune from being fired for doing so.

This resolution doesn't say anything about how to fire employees. Just that it's not allowed when they're on strike. And that's not something employees will do lightly (as the money will run out eventually, and companies will find other excuses to fire them)

Enacting this resolution will ultimately result in a blow to our economies (the business won't make as much money), but it won't even accomplish it's intended goal of helping the average worker because of outsourcing.

That might be because, listen for it, this resolution is not about outsourcing. It grants a right (under certain conditions). That's it. You can take all your economy and throw it at this resolution, but it just slides off because that's not what this resolution does.

This resolution also does not tell you that you're not allowed to fire lazy workers, it does not tell you to outsource or not to outsource, it does not tell you that wages must go up, it does not tell you that wages must go down. It just tells you that if workers want to get organized in a union, you can't stop them.

In Groot Gouda, the government has regular talks with representatives of the major unions to discuss wage development. If the economy is going bad, we make a deal with unions not to push for higher wages, to help the economy go up again. So we can go through a bad period with less strikes and less unemployment.

That is why you need to vote for this resolution.

This gives me the most concern with the resolution because it is a subtle one way door trap. Every citizen has the right to form or join a union. But do they have a right not to join a union? Or disolve a union already formed?

In practice the answer is no. In some cases union invlvement is mandtory if you want employment. You have no say in whether a portion of your salary has to go to the union even though the union may not always be there to support you when you need it. (Evil RL reference: Read J.C. Watts "What Color is Conserative" about his experiences with the CFL player's union.)

On the other hand I'm going to disagree with the honorable senator Horatio Sulla. I don't think the international union is per se a danger. Yes some international unions were fronts but other unions have managed to cross national borders establshing uniform standards, reducing cross border tensions and competitions. My biggest concern is that this is a pyramid game where union bosses care only for getting more members under them to pay dues and pay only lip service to their members. Unions are typically a monopoly, if you don't like your current union, tough luck. It's not like you can switch to a different union.
The resolution has a clause dealing with this.

EDIT: Clause 7.

I would just like to put forwards a small point concerning this resolution, namely that it does not address (directly) the question of secondary action or (for those unfamilliar with the term) 'wildcat' strikes. Under Compadrian law these are permitted, because we feel that workers should be allowed, with the consensus of a union, to take action without ballot it there is a pressing and immediate concern that requires industrial action, yet for whatever reason a ballot within the required time would not be possible. Would such actions be protected under this resolution?

Otherwise, we are very happy with this resolution and would urge all our honourable fellow delegates and members to vote yes.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I would just like to put forwards a small point concerning this resolution, namely that it does not address (directly) the question of secondary action or (for those unfamilliar with the term) 'wildcat' strikes. Under Compadrian law these are permitted, because we feel that workers should be allowed, with the consensus of a union, to take action without ballot it there is a pressing and immediate concern that requires industrial action, yet for whatever reason a ballot within the required time would not be possible. Would such actions be protected under this resolution?

All strikes must be union-approved. How this is approved isn't mentioned, nor is it forbidden to start your own union which will approve a strike. But there has to be some limit, because a strike should be a last resort, not something done too quickly. That way, it's also easier to protect workers on strike, because you know they don't "just" go on strike like that.

*deep breath*

WHY IS THIS HUMAN RIGHTS NOT SOCIAL JUSTICE?
Dude, post #46. Relax.

All strikes must be union-approved. How this is approved isn't mentioned, nor is it forbidden to start your own union which will approve a strike. But there has to be some limit, because a strike should be a last resort, not something done too quickly. That way, it's also easier to protect workers on strike, because you know they don't "just" go on strike like that.

Ok, that answers my question. Thanks.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Because some people feel that the right to unionize is an er ... right?

After all who ever said a union was interested in justice. Even social justice.

Unions force companies to increase wages. This in turn requires companies to pass the cost to the consumers. This includes the poor who can barely afford the goods and services in the first place; being forced into even greater poverty because of the greed of the unions. IS THAT SOCIAL JUSTICE?
The greed of a union is inifinitesimal compared to the greed of a corporation. Why, pray, do management/executive sections "pass the cost on to consumers"? Because they are too spoiled by salaries which far outstrip the relative value of their position. Multiple millions of s per year for exectutives, along with golden-parachute retirement or severance packages and other benefits have created an overindulged uberclass.

I don't care whether or not anyone likes that particular development (myself, I find such cavernous and yawning wage gaps abhorrent, but it doesn't mean what I believe is right for the world), but surely the cost of ensuring a safe workplace, group-rate health insurance and fair living wage being passed on to the consumer is a decision made by someone who came to work in a Bentley, not a Kia. Do I believe that executives should be rewarded better than management or rank-and-file? Of course. Should it be an order of [i]magnitude? No. Take a look at the salaries of executives as a multiple of the average rank-and-file worker over the last few decades, and you'll see not just a gap, but a gulf.

Ah, but you see, in those nations there are hardly any unions. But by allowing them to form unions as well, wages might go up and it doesn't pay to outsource anymore :)

This resolution doesn't say anything about how to fire employees. Just that it's not allowed when they're on strike. And that's not something employees will do lightly (as the money will run out eventually, and companies will find other excuses to fire them)


In Groot Gouda, the government has regular talks with representatives of the major unions to discuss wage development. If the economy is going bad, we make a deal with unions not to push for higher wages, to help the economy go up again. So we can go through a bad period with less strikes and less unemployment.

That is why you need to vote for this resolution.

Thankyou kindly for responding to my post, but I fail to understand your argument against outsourcing. If wages go up in our nations, why will it not pay to outsource anymore? If you argue that it won't pay to outsource to other UN nations, that is possible, but this proposition does not, indeed, it can not, have any jursidiction over non-UN nations. So now the non-UN nations are going to have awsome economies (compared to UN nations) AND get a whole lot more jobs due to outsourcing. UN nation economies will suffer, and the "common folk" will not be helped.

Secondly, what is there to stop a union from forming, striking, and while on strike, taking up a job eslewhere? According to this proposition, the employers can't fire them since they are on strike, and the employees will be collecting a salary from another job, while preventing the company they are striking against from operating.

Thirdly, if your nation has talks with unions, great, but who or what is there to make sure that the unions listen? If the unions want higher wages at the expense of the national economy (which is what happens almost every time they strike), that is what they want, and nobody can stop them! Simply talking wont stop a union from striking - only firing will, and that is why the provision preventing the firing of union members while on strike is preventing me, indeed, prohibiting me, from FOR this resolution, and that is why I stand firmly AGAINST the current UN resolution

Thankyou kindly for responding to my post, but I fail to understand your argument against outsourcing. If wages go up in our nations, why will it not pay to outsource anymore? If you argue that it won't pay to outsource to other UN nations, that is possible, but this proposition does not, indeed, it can not, have any jursidiction over non-UN nations. So now the non-UN nations are going to have awsome economies (compared to UN nations) AND get a whole lot more jobs due to outsourcing. UN nation economies will suffer, and the "common folk" will not be helped.

And do tell me, what would be the reason that that is not happening now?

Secondly, what is there to stop a union from forming, striking, and while on strike, taking up a job eslewhere? According to this proposition, the employers can't fire them since they are on strike, and the employees will be collecting a salary from another job, while preventing the company they are striking against from operating.

You'll need a lot of employers to do that. That's simply unrealistic. Besides, an employer could fire a worker for sabotage or whatever, as the resolution states that being on strike is not allowed as a reason for firing.

Thirdly, if your nation has talks with unions, great, but who or what is there to make sure that the unions listen? If the unions want higher wages at the expense of the national economy (which is what happens almost every time they strike), that is what they want, and nobody can stop them!

Nobody can stop them wanting - but there are advantages, because any agreement made is backed up by the government. That means it is very difficult for employers to ignore those agreements. And they are likely to get more than what they would get by going on strike (after all, damaging the economy does not benefit union members).

It's in their own interest to listen.

Simply talking wont stop a union from striking - only firing will, and that is why the provision preventing the firing of union members while on strike is preventing me, indeed, prohibiting me, from FOR this resolution, and that is why I stand firmly AGAINST the current UN resolution

Then I am glad I'm not working in your nation.

OOC: and my example is based on RL, the Netherlands, where the system works quite well.

All strikes must be union-approved. How this is approved isn't mentioned, nor is it forbidden to start your own union which will approve a strike. But there has to be some limit, because a strike should be a last resort, not something done too quickly. That way, it's also easier to protect workers on strike, because you know they don't "just" go on strike like that.

I would also like to bring up an argument or two against what you just said there.

Since it isn't forbidden to start your own union which will approve a strike, what is to stop Bill and Sue from forming their own union of two members and striking? Granted, the strike won't be too effective, but it does effectively allow someone to stop working for a month (say, to go on vacation or to work at H&R block for a while) and claiming to have made a union with a fellow co-worker who wanted to do the same thing. If anyone can form a union, anyone can strike whenever and wherever and for whatever reason. Someone could even strike just because the company's competitor paid them to do so! There must be a valid reason for a strike, and the workers on strike will have to be prohibited from taking up a job elsewhere while on the strike, or else strikes will get way out of control.

You also say that there has to be some limit - the resolution says nothing about said limit, and thus there really is no limit. What you say in here doesn't count, only what it said over there.

Again, I re-affirm our position as AGAINST this proposition, because it drastically hurts the economy, and doesn't benefit the workers. This is a proposition that hurts everybodt and helps nobody

Since it isn't forbidden to start your own union which will approve a strike, what is to stop Bill and Sue from forming their own union of two members and striking? Granted, the strike won't be too effective, but it does effectively allow someone to stop working for a month (say, to go on vacation or to work at H&R block for a while) and claiming to have made a union with a fellow co-worker who wanted to do the same thing. If anyone can form a union, anyone can strike whenever and wherever and for whatever reason.

And do you seriously think that there is no reason at all why those people can be fired? Going on strike isn't a reason to fire someone. Abusing that right for a holiday is. So there's no reason for you to oppose this legislation.

And do tell me, what would be the reason that that is not happening now?

You'll need a lot of employers to do that. That's simply unrealistic. Besides, an employer could fire a worker for sabotage or whatever, as the resolution states that being on strike is not allowed as a reason for firing.

Nobody can stop them wanting - but there are advantages, because any agreement made is backed up by the government. That means it is very difficult for employers to ignore those agreements. And they are likely to get more than what they would get by going on strike (after all, damaging the economy does not benefit union members).

It's in their own interest to listen.

Then I am glad I'm not working in your nation.

OOC: and my example is based on RL, the Netherlands, where the system works quite well.

Again, thankyou for your kind response.

The reason why it isn't happening now (in my nation) is because we give employers the authority to fire some employees when that is the only way to end a strike and remain in business. If you were referring to the USA (a RL example that I gave where this proposition has utterly failed), outsourcing is happening, because of the existence of laws similar to this one.

I fail to see how I am unrealistic. There is nothing in this resolution that prevents union workers on strike to sleep when they would normally be working, and work another job when they would normally be sleeping. It is not unrealistic, indeed it is very realistic, and a problem that must be adressed rather than simply swept under the rug by calling it unrealistic.

I also fail to understand your third argument. Employers won't want to raise wages, and union members won't want to keep working at lower wages than they could get by striking. The government backing them up? What power does the government have? The government is not granted any power over unions (indeed, the government's power is restricted if anything) in this resolution. Employers can ignore whatever deal the unions and the government make, and the unions can ignore whatever deal the government and the employers make. By preventing firing of striking workers, you give nobody any authority to put an end to a strike (unless, I suppose, union members on strike get thrown in jail).

I don't know much about the Netherlands, and unless I'm mistaken, their economy isn't booming too much. I have presented a much bigger RL example (the USA) of how laws similar to this one have completely failed. I will abstain from personal attacks, but I stand firmly AGAINST this resolution

And do you seriously think that there is no reason at all why those people can be fired? Going on strike isn't a reason to fire someone. Abusing that right for a holiday is. So there's no reason for you to oppose this legislation.

"employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker"

This says nothing about firing them for abusing that right. Your proposition feels that the right to strike is sacrosanct and no definition of "not abusing that right" are made. So, either individual nations get to define what abusing that right is (and we could define it as not working their job) or this proposition defines it (which it doesn't, so there is no such thing as abusing that right). You can't have it both ways, so there is reason for me to be AGAINST this legislation

Y'know, for the biggest economic superpower in the world with a rather astonishing growth rate considering its size, I find your claim that the unions are hurting the American economy to be rather dubious.

As for economic situation:

Netherlands GDP/capita: $30,500 USD
US GDP/capita: $41,800 USD
UK GDP/capita: $30,900 USD
Canada GDP/capita: $32,800 USD

Source: CIA Factbook

I think I've seen one other country ever on that list that's over $40k (can't locate it again so I might just be confusing the US with it). I really do distrust your claim about the American economy being so badly damaged by unions.

Canada, BTW, has the second largest figure in the G8, and third largest of those that I checked rather quickly (Swiss sitting at 35,000).

The greed of a union is inifinitesimal compared to the greed of a corporation. Why, pray, do management/executive sections "pass the cost on to consumers"? Because they are too spoiled by salaries which far outstrip the relative value of their position. Multiple millions of [insert national currency here]s per year for exectutives, along with golden-parachute retirement or severance packages and other benefits have created an overindulged uberclass.

I disagree that the greed is "inifinitesimal" but to argue that there is greed might seem to make me argue something I am not. Greed happens. You can't avoid it. Where two or three are gathered for any reason whatsoever, greed happens. MY point is with respect to whether unions are "socical justice" or not. Unions do not exist for the betterment of mankind. They exist for the betterment of their members.

As for the greed and insnity of CEO and board of directors. Such is life. Such greed is never good. Such greed only takes down the company in the long run. Then the CEO and the board are sued. Then the lawyers make money. Such is life.

Since it isn't forbidden to start your own union which will approve a strike, what is to stop Bill and Sue from forming their own union of two members and striking?

This is one area of the resolution that concerns me. Not the notion that you can have you can have a union of two striking, but the wording throughout the resolution seems to imply that you could have multiple unions operating at the same time. Traditional unions are highly structured, one union represents one category of people in a given company and everyone in that category is in the union. Under this model not only you can have members not be in a union, you can have multiple unions involved. Is this a FREE MARKET for unions? OMG, it's such a insane idea it might just work!

(The barganing table is going to be a nightmare. But perhaps that's better than a stalemate. Especially if you allow union members to become non union or change unions, then each union will become more and more in tune with the needs of the workers - in order to get their membership - because that is the only way for the union to remain in control.)

The reason why it isn't happening now (in my nation) is because we give employers the authority to fire some employees when that is the only way to end a strike and remain in business. If you were referring to the USA (a RL example that I gave where this proposition has utterly failed), outsourcing is happening, because of the existence of laws similar to this one.

Outsourcing is an interesting problem, but I fail to see what it has to do with unions. Union and non union positions are outsourced with equal passion. The real reason for outsourcing has to do with the old question, "If everyone in the world jumped off the bridge, would you jump off too?" For most corporate executives the answer is yes. Most outsourcing happens because some idiot sees it on the cover of "Hip CEO Monthly" and thinks this is the way for the future.

But there is also inverse oursourcing. Moving theworkforce away from the country that they support would be outsourcing, but in some cases companies move their workforce to the country where they are going to be delivering the product. (In the fantasy of the RL, a good example is the Toyota motor company which is creating more factories in the USA to assemble cars for that market.)


By the way, in case anyone wants to dogpile on the Meddling Monk, I'm actually voting for this resolution.

Y'know, for the biggest economic superpower in the world with a rather astonishing growth rate considering its size, I find your claim that the unions are hurting the American economy to be rather dubious.


Good point, I am not saying that US economy stinks, I'm saying it would be much better if we didn't have unions. Really, how do unions help the economy? They dont.

As for the argument brought up about unions having nothing to do with outsourcing, that is a possibility, but not one that I agree with. Unions raise employee salaries which in turn either increases the cost of products (and thus, increases inflation) or decreases the amount of profit that business make (thus hurting the economy). If the first doesn't happen, the second will, and employers will look for areas where wages are cheaper (such as Mexico) and, in essence, "outsource" the jobs that they would have otherwise provided to their nation. Outsourcing does have a dirrect correlation to unions and minimum wage (American minimum wage is about $5 an hour I think, while many Mexicans will work a long day for $5 - I lived there for 6 years), and outsourcing (as well as unions) hurts economies and hurts "common laborers". That is why, I stand resolutely AGAINST this resolution

Good point, I am not saying that US economy stinks, I'm saying it would be much better if we didn't have unions. Really, how do unions help the economy? They dont.

As for the argument brought up about unions having nothing to do with outsourcing, that is a possibility, but not one that I agree with. Unions raise employee salaries which in turn either increases the cost of products (and thus, increases inflation) or decreases the amount of profit that business make (thus hurting the economy). If the first doesn't happen, the second will, and employers will look for areas where wages are cheaper (such as Mexico) and, in essence, "outsource" the jobs that they would have otherwise provided to their nation. Outsourcing does have a dirrect correlation to unions and minimum wage (American minimum wage is about $5 an hour I think, while many Mexicans will work a long day for $5 - I lived there for 6 years), and outsourcing (as well as unions) hurts economies and hurts "common laborers". That is why, I stand resolutely AGAINST this resolution

Ok - I want you to step back and think VERY carefully here.

Do you honestly believe it is reasonable to allow employers to hire American citizens in American cities for $5 a day? Unions or no unions, minimum wage or no minimum wage, low level jobs cannot compete with cheap foreign labour. Think about it, and think carefully.

In Groot Gouda, the government has regular talks with representatives of the major unions to discuss wage development. If the economy is going bad, we make a deal with unions not to push for higher wages, to help the economy go up again. So we can go through a bad period with less strikes and less unemployment.


OOC: And do your unions agree & keep to the terms of those deals? That sort of policy was tried here in Britain during the 1970s, by both Labour and (pre-Thatcher) Conservative governments, and it didn't work then... What guarantee do NS nations' governments have that any unions formed within their countries will behave like yours, rather than like the British 1970s ones?

Ok - I want you to step back and think VERY carefully here.

Do you honestly believe it is reasonable to allow employers to hire American citizens in American cities for $5 a day? Unions or no unions, minimum wage or no minimum wage, low level jobs cannot compete with cheap foreign labour. Think about it, and think carefully.

Should they be allowed to sure? Will they find anyone that will work for such a low wage? Nope. That is the beauty of the system. If someone wants to be a security person who just looks out his window every half an hour, and is allowed to do his school work or something else at his desk in the mean-time, he should be allowed to work for $5 or $10 if that is what he and his employer agree on.
Your argument about there will always be outsourcing doesn't hold much water, however, because there is more than just the $5 a day (which is unskilled farm labor, the unskilled manufactoring employees will easily get $10 a day) to consider. Costs such as tariffs, the cost of building, purchasing, and transporting equipment and buildings, the cost of transporting the product back to America (or whatever company did the outsourcing), costs of translators.... Nobody wants to outsource, but they do it because they have to. Were they able to pay their US employees $6 or $7 an hour, outsourcing wouldn't be a problem, but instead unions have to demand $9 or $10, and all of a sudden, it isn't profitable to keep the jobs in our nations any more. That is the root of the problem. If we got rid of minimum wage and unions, wages wouldn't plunge. They might go down a little, but you aren't going to find anyone in America that will work for $4 or less. Restaurants have a hard enough time finding people to work for $6 an hour!

Should they be allowed to sure? Will they find anyone that will work for such a low wage? Nope. That is the beauty of the system. If someone wants to be a security person who just looks out his window every half an hour, and is allowed to do his school work or something else at his desk in the mean-time, he should be allowed to work for $5 or $10 if that is what he and his employer agree on.
Your argument about there will always be outsourcing doesn't hold much water, however, because there is more than just the $5 a day (which is unskilled farm labor, the unskilled manufactoring employees will easily get $10 a day) to consider. Costs such as tariffs, the cost of building, purchasing, and transporting equipment and buildings, the cost of transporting the product back to America (or whatever company did the outsourcing), costs of translators.... Nobody wants to outsource, but they do it because they have to. Were they able to pay their US employees $6 or $7 an hour, outsourcing wouldn't be a problem, but instead unions have to demand $9 or $10, and all of a sudden, it isn't profitable to keep the jobs in our nations any more. That is the root of the problem. If we got rid of minimum wage and unions, wages wouldn't plunge. They might go down a little, but you aren't going to find anyone in America that will work for $4 or less. Restaurants have a hard enough time finding people to work for $6 an hour!

I'm sorry, you're still a looooong way from convincing me that this is even somewhat true. Any company that feels there is a reasonable argument for moving south of the border is not going to be phased by a $2 difference per hour. However, you're talking about cutting employees salaries by 80%, something that I consider to be rather abhorent.


Edit: especially considering that that those numbers are for people already sitting on one of the lowest rungs in society

This is one area of the resolution that concerns me. Not the notion that you can have you can have a union of two striking, but the wording throughout the resolution seems to imply that you could have multiple unions operating at the same time. Traditional unions are highly structured, one union represents one category of people in a given company and everyone in that category is in the union. Under this model not only you can have members not be in a union, you can have multiple unions involved. Is this a FREE MARKET for unions? OMG, it's such a insane idea it might just work!

You know, not all unions are organised the way they are in the USA. And, apart from my rather leftist view on many things, I am a leftwing liberal. Freedom is what matters to me. So I want to give people the freedom to pick a union, or unpick one that doesn't represent their interests.

OOC: And do your unions agree & keep to the terms of those deals? That sort of policy was tried here in Britain during the 1970s, by both Labour and (pre-Thatcher) Conservative governments, and it didn't work then... What guarantee do NS nations' governments have that any unions formed within their countries will behave like yours, rather than like the British 1970s ones?

OOC: I am not familiar with the British system. It works here, that's all I know. They could try not to, but what would be the point? Unions know too that if they ask too much, they're only biting themselves. Ask for too much wage and suddenly you need to negotiate about a lot of redundancy packages.

As for the argument brought up about unions having nothing to do with outsourcing, that is a possibility, but not one that I agree with.

One counter argment is something that has been recently called by economists the "Wall*Mart Effect." It is the notion that if two items that do the same thing have different prices, the one with the lowest price must be better. The fact that the one with the lower price might break in 6 weeks, and the one with the higher price might never break no longer is important to the decision as to which is better. (Why is this a counter argument? Because Wall*Mart is the shining star of non unionism in the U.S.A.) This promotes outsourcing because cheeper labor produces poorer goods for less money which is preceived as better.

If you look at areas where the Wall*Mart Effect is not common (auto parts for example) you will notice a mutual fear factor. In China, most auto part executives are scared of the US because while labor is cheaper in China, they are more "push button" workers. They have a bunch of people who know how to start and stop the machines. In the US there is only one worker (although he is paid more) and he knows how not only to run the machines but how to re-program them.

You know, not all unions are organised the way they are in the USA.

:D That makes me glad. On the other hand since this is Nation States, I've always assumed that the worst model the world has to offer is probably superior to the best model that Nation States provides. Murphy's law is the only sure thing you can depend on. :(

Should they be allowed to sure? Will they find anyone that will work for such a low wage? Nope. That is the beauty of the system. If someone wants to be a security person who just looks out his window every half an hour, and is allowed to do his school work or something else at his desk in the mean-time, he should be allowed to work for $5 or $10 if that is what he and his employer agree on.

I think you are failing to take into account several factors of employment, namely scarcity of jobs, illegal immigrant workforces and exploitation by unscrupulous companies. Workers do not all live in a wonderland where they can negotiate good pay deals. Illegal immigrants are frequently treated like dirt and paid next to nothing in exchange for back-breaking labour and long hours. They are usually not unionised. Non-unionised labour, indeed, have less job-security, lower pay and lower health and safety protections, because they've got no means to unite and stand up to exploitation should it occur, as it often does. Companies are not all bad, but they're not all fair-minded either: Many will pay less than $5 an hour and not offer any accompanying benefits. Is this fair? No. Is this right? No. Could a trade union make a difference? Almost certainly.

Your argument about there will always be outsourcing doesn't hold much water, however, because there is more than just the $5 a day (which is unskilled farm labor, the unskilled manufactoring employees will easily get $10 a day) to consider. Costs such as tariffs, the cost of building, purchasing, and transporting equipment and buildings, the cost of transporting the product back to America (or whatever company did the outsourcing), costs of translators.... Nobody wants to outsource, but they do it because they have to. Were they able to pay their US employees $6 or $7 an hour, outsourcing wouldn't be a problem, but instead unions have to demand $9 or $10, and all of a sudden, it isn't profitable to keep the jobs in our nations any more. That is the root of the problem. If we got rid of minimum wage and unions, wages wouldn't plunge. They might go down a little, but you aren't going to find anyone in America that will work for $4 or less. Restaurants have a hard enough time finding people to work for $6 an hour!

I am perhaps being soft-hearted here, but it seems to me that demanding better pay is not an unreasonable notion and I, in fact, am deeply disgusted by companies who decide to outsource jobs to nations with cheaper workforces. It's bad for the employees in the original nation, who now have no jobs. It's bad for those who get the jobs in the new nation, because they're often being exploited. I understand that outsourcing is economically a good idea, but as a human being, I find the theory that one should strip people of dignity and a livelihood purely on the basis of economics repellent.

And what's more, a trade union could make a difference and they should.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I think you are failing to take into account several factors of employment, namely scarcity of jobs, illegal immigrant workforces and exploitation by unscrupulous companies. Workers do not all live in a wonderland where they can negotiate good pay deals. Illegal immigrants are frequently treated like dirt and paid next to nothing in exchange for back-breaking labour and long hours. They are usually not unionised. Non-unionised labour, indeed, have less job-security, lower pay and lower health and safety protections, because they've got no means to unite and stand up to exploitation should it occur, as it often does. Companies are not all bad, but they're not all fair-minded either: Many will pay less than $5 an hour and not offer any accompanying benefits. Is this fair? No. Is this right? No. Could a trade union make a difference? Almost certainly.



I am perhaps being soft-hearted here, but it seems to me that demanding better pay is not an unreasonable notion and I, in fact, am deeply disgusted by companies who decide to outsource jobs to nations with cheaper workforces. It's bad for the employees in the original nation, who now have no jobs. It's bad for those who get the jobs in the new nation, because they're often being exploited. I understand that outsourcing is economically a good idea, but as a human being, I find the theory that one should strip people of dignity and a livelihood purely on the basis of economics repellent.

And what's more, a trade union could make a difference and they should.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Thankyou, as well, for your kind response (although I would have rathered you agreed with me, lol). I would, however, like to take issue with a few statements you made.

First, jobs are not scarce. Unemployment exists, not because all the jobs are full, but because nobody wants to work the jobs that are available. I'll explain further in a little.

Second - illegal immigrants. Let me clear something up. I work with Mexican immigrants in the US (most are illegal), and if I know anything, I know that they earn more money than most teenagers or other unskilled laborers earn. Why is that, you ask? I'm glad you asked, and this ties in with the previous point - because most Americans are too stuck up to work tough jobs, such as at the chicken slaughter-houses. They get paid $8 an hour (in a part of the US where that is probably above the median wage), not because they are skilled at it, but because nobody wants to work that job. Do they have unions to get that salary? Nope.

Allow me to present another example. A former employer of mine offered $10 an hour starting wage for unskilled labor to help in construction work. Was this because of unions? Nope Was it because of minimum wage? Nope. Why was it? Because he knew that if he paid more, his employees would work harder. That is the beauty of not having unions - letting the employers take care of their employees, and if the employees aren't happy, they can find another job. Shucks, they can even go on strike if they want, so long as they are willing to be fired.

Groot Gouda has mentioned he likes to give everyone freedom, and he defines freedom as the freedom to make unions. I like to give freedom too, the freedom to make unions, AND the freedom for employers to fire union members. Going on the argument of freedom, I think we should vote AGAINST

Lets get back on topic here. The harms claimed in the status quo are (at least in the nations that haven't enacted laws similar to this resolution):
1. Common workers aren't getting enough wages
and maybe
2. When they strike, they can get fired

The advantages claimed are:
1. Higher wages for common folk
and
2. The right to strike will be held sacrosanct

The obvious disadvantages are:
1. Employers won't be able to make as much money

And the disputed disadvantages are:
1. Employers will go out of business
or
2. Employers will outsource
or
3. Employers will raise prices (AKA - inflation. Nothing changes if this takes place)
and any of those happening will result in
4. A blow to our economies.

Now, I have already explained how low wages aren't a problem (at least not in my nation - Groot Gouda's don't get any wages since it all goes to the government), and how the second harm is the way it should be - not a harm after all. I have also explained how the first advantage won't come about, since the first two disadvantages do just the opposite - eliminate jobs. Thanks to supply and demand, the wages will drop if the # of jobs drops. As for the second advantage, I dont' think it is an advantage as I have stated earlier. The disadvantages are real, in fact, real enough for me to vote AGAINST this resolution

I agree. Labor unions can be utterly disasterous to economies.

Thankyou, as well, for your kind response (although I would have rathered you agreed with me, lol). I would, however, like to take issue with a few statements you made.

First, jobs are not scarce. Unemployment exists, not because all the jobs are full, but because nobody wants to work the jobs that are available. I'll explain further in a little.

Oh, God. It's like turning to a blind man and being told that the world is dark.

I'll give my long speach later on

Second - illegal immigrants. Let me clear something up. I work with Mexican immigrants in the US (most are illegal), and if I know anything, I know that they earn more money than most teenagers or other unskilled laborers earn. Why is that, you ask? I'm glad you asked, and this ties in with the previous point - because most Americans are too stuck up to work tough jobs, such as at the chicken slaughter-houses. They get paid $8 an hour (in a part of the US where that is probably above the median wage), not because they are skilled at it, but because nobody wants to work that job. Do they have unions to get that salary? Nope.

Did you know that there just so happens to be a handful of slaves still in the US? Guess what they are. Oh right, Illegal immigrants.

Yes, some of those jobs illegal immigrants do quite well at. Others, they end up getting paid less than their coworkers.

Allow me to present another example. A former employer of mine offered $10 an hour starting wage for unskilled labor to help in construction work. Was this because of unions? Nope Was it because of minimum wage? Nope. Why was it? Because he knew that if he paid more, his employees would work harder. That is the beauty of not having unions - letting the employers take care of their employees, and if the employees aren't happy, they can find another job. Shucks, they can even go on strike if they want, so long as they are willing to be fired.

Fine.

----

I'd like you to think to some of the smaller centers - the "rural" regions of the US, where the town is run by a single factory and if you lose your job there, you are pretty much fucked.

And seriously, you're defending a $10/hr job? I was nearly making that much at a bottle depot (of all places) and I was on the part-time scale. My last job which was a youth-employment program just got some new funds so that they can now pay their employees $10/hr.

Groot Gouda has mentioned he likes to give everyone freedom, and he defines freedom as the freedom to make unions. I like to give freedom too, the freedom to make unions, AND the freedom for employers to fire union members. Going on the argument of freedom, I think we should vote AGAINST

*sighs*. You have yet to convince me that you have a realistic understanding of the society that exists nor what a fair wage is - and definitely a faulty understanding of history (though I would rather not get into that detail).

Lets get back on topic here. The harms claimed in the status quo are (at least in the nations that haven't enacted laws similar to this resolution):
1. Common workers aren't getting enough wages
and maybe
2. When they strike, they can get fired

The advantages claimed are:
1. Higher wages for common folk
and
2. The right to strike will be held sacrosanct

The obvious disadvantages are:
1. Employers won't be able to make as much money

Overall, something that I find somewhat.....satisfying

And the disputed disadvantages are:
1. Employers will go out of business
or
2. Employers will outsource
or
3. Employers will raise prices (AKA - inflation. Nothing changes if this takes place)
and any of those happening will result in
4. A blow to our economies.

Or employers could take a pay-cut or find ways to improve their operations or a thousand other things plus certain businesses getting shut down or outsourced may actually be beneficial in the long run for economies - just as general economic theory is that lack of protective tariffs is generally good for your economy in the long term. There's thousands of other arguments.

Regardless, you defended - this one gets me - you defended people making $10/hr, making a mere $20 000/yr receiving a 20% deduction in the name of preventing outsourcing, in the name of "the economy" while other methods that could bring in higher paying jobs that are more focused to an advanced society are rejected because this job for this worker should stay here. It's like being told that a gash on the arm is better than a stool to sit on.

Now, I have already explained how low wages aren't a problem (at least not in my nation - Groot Gouda's don't get any wages since it all goes to the government), and how the second harm is the way it should be - not a harm after all. I have also explained how the first advantage won't come about, since the first two disadvantages do just the opposite - eliminate jobs. Thanks to supply and demand, the wages will drop if the # of jobs drops. As for the second advantage, I dont' think it is an advantage as I have stated earlier. The disadvantages are real, in fact, real enough for me to vote AGAINST this resolution

Again, failure to understand history, a failure to correctly analyze the reality of the societies in this world.

My turn for show and tell.

Like you, I grew up in a booming economy, one where there were more jobs than people so companies were willing to give out better wages. That said, one of my friends who came from the Canadian maritimes where they have held a rather shocking economic situation for a lot of years. He worked at a theater out there and was able to work his way up to supervisor before he came out here to study. People there were paid minimum wage. Reason: the worker pool was flooded. They worked unpaid overtime and if you complained, you were fired on the spot. They could replace anyone at any time without hesitation or suffering any consequences. There, of course, was no union. Add on that these were, by and large, High School students, they were given even less respect as they wouldn't be trying to plan long-term there. Having actually applied for a theater job out here at one point, I know that they were not paying minimum wage out here.

There are some areas of the world where there are truly more jobs than there are people. I happen to be living and working in one of those areas. However, this isn't a universal fact. It isn't even universal across all cities, towns and communities in your own nation. Your lack of openness to the world around you is actually starting to irke me. You take situations you're in as a fact of the world. It's not, and it's time you started realizing it.

Welcome to reality.

First, jobs are not scarce. Unemployment exists, not because all the jobs are full, but because nobody wants to work the jobs that are available.

That's an assumption that is simply not true (at least, most of the time). Unemployment exists, because more people are looking for a job than there are jobs. Simple as that. It's not a matter of not wanting to do a certain job, it's not being able to. Don't make the same mistake some economists do and assume a perfect world with perfectly informed and capable human beings. If a job is on the other side of the country there are plenty good reasons why someone will not fullfill that job vacancy.

Second - illegal immigrants. Let me clear something up. I work with Mexican immigrants in the US (most are illegal), and if I know anything, I know that they earn more money than most teenagers or other unskilled laborers earn. Why is that, you ask? I'm glad you asked, and this ties in with the previous point - because most Americans are too stuck up to work tough jobs, such as at the chicken slaughter-houses. They get paid $8 an hour (in a part of the US where that is probably above the median wage), not because they are skilled at it, but because nobody wants to work that job. Do they have unions to get that salary? Nope.

But what does that have to do with the whole resolution? It merely allows people to join a union. You're going to great and improbably lengths to argue against unions, but the thing is, if unions aren't necessary then this resolution has no impact on you. If, for example, those illegal immigrants do want to form a union, then apparently they're underpaid or their working conditions are wrong, so a union can do a lot of good for them.

Allow me to present another example. A former employer of mine offered $10 an hour starting wage for unskilled labor to help in construction work. Was this because of unions? Nope Was it because of minimum wage? Nope. Why was it? Because he knew that if he paid more, his employees would work harder. That is the beauty of not having unions - letting the employers take care of their employees, and if the employees aren't happy, they can find another job. Shucks, they can even go on strike if they want, so long as they are willing to be fired.

If more money means harder work, then why didn't he offer $15? Or more? An employer will try to cut employment costs wherever he can. So if he can get away with $10, that's what he'll pay, and not a cent more. Because the employees might not have a choice to where they work. And they can't go on strike, because they'll get fired, and nobody likes that if you have your family to feed.

Groot Gouda has mentioned he likes to give everyone freedom, and he defines freedom as the freedom to make unions. I like to give freedom too, the freedom to make unions, AND the freedom for employers to fire union members.

They have that right. But not just because they're going on strike because the employers are mistreating their staff. If you don't protect workers, they can't go on strike, they can't improve their own conditions. What you are proposing is the equivalent of allowing people to protest and allowing your government to shoot them down on the spot. That's not freedom, that's tyranny.

Lets get back on topic here. The harms claimed in the status quo are (at least in the nations that haven't enacted laws similar to this resolution):
1. Common workers aren't getting enough wages

This is not just about wages, it's also about all other working conditions.

The obvious disadvantages are:
1. Employers won't be able to make as much money

Wrong. They can make plenty of money, but they'll have to give their employees a fairer treatment for it.

Whatever happens is dealt with in each nation, in each company even. All this resolution does is allow workers to get organised. Everything else is speculation.

Now, I have already explained how low wages aren't a problem

No, working and still not being able to pay the rent or buy food is not a problem at all [/sarcasm]

You are looking at this from the perspective of somebody who has a choice. For the other 50% in the world who aren't as comfortable as you are, this resolution is needed.

Vote for.

I hate to interupt the economic debate, but what's wrong with letting each nation decide for themselves what is best?

I hate to interupt the economic debate, but what's wrong with letting each nation decide for themselves what is best?


That notion goes completely against the Groot Gouda philosophy of "my beliefs uber alles."

I hate to interupt the economic debate, but what's wrong with letting each nation decide for themselves what is best?

That is a good question. The good answer is that there are some issues that are wholely contained within an indivual nationstate, but there are others that can have major effects that cross national borders.

Corporations are multi-national. They will naturally seek nations that offer the best tax incentives, the lowest wages and so forth. This leads to lowest common denominator mentality among the nationstates.

In these cases common legislation acts for nationstates as unions act for individuals. The members of the UN can have a united approach (as opposed to international LCD rivalry) for common standards.

There is the question of non UN nations. But, this is not an issue where one non UN nation can spoil the legislation. While there would remain pressure from non UN nations, the UN nations as a block still hold a vast significant economic power, and if multi-national corporations want a bit of the member nations pie they will play by our rules.

So the simple answer (why didn't I say this first?) is that UNITY sometimes ROCKS! (And sometimes it just does a slow waltz.)

I hate to interupt the economic debate, but what's wrong with letting each nation decide for themselves what is best?

What is wrong with that, is the fact that in a globalized, free market economy, this is very much an issue of international concern.

Before elaborating further upon that, we would like to take the time and ask certain nations in opposition to stop for a moment and ponder upon one basic question: Do people exist for the benefit of the market, or does the market exist for the benefit of people?

It is apparent that supporters on both sides in this issue at least agree on one thing, and that is that the work of labour unions - whether through collective bargaining or industrial actions such as strikes - leads to higher wages for workers.

It is in the best interest of every nation that is dependent on the global market for its economy to make sure that its national work-force receives a fair wage and thereby a decent standard of living.

The reason for this is simple political economics 101, based on the concepts of cause and effect, and supply and demand.

* If workers receive decent wages, they won't have to worry about being able to provide shelter, food and clothing for themselves and their families. -> When workers are secure in this way, they become happier and healthier. -> When workers are happy and healthy, they become more productive. -> When workers are more productive, they generate more, and better quality, surplus goods and services for their employers. -> When their employers possess more, and better quality surplus goods and services, they have a larger and better supply and become more competitive on the market. -> When the employers are more competitive on the market, they make more money. -> When the employers (corporations and businesses) make more money, the state makes more money.

Furthermore:

* When workers make enough money to be able to provide the basic necessities for themselves and their families, and still have money to spare, they gain purchasing power, which they can use to consume and invest. -> When they consume and invest, demand for goods and services increases internationally. -> When purchasing power, and thereby demand increases, employers (corporations and businesses) can sell more of their surplus goods and services, and thus make more money. -> And once again, when the employers (corporations and businesses) make more money, the state makes more money.

It's really that simple.

By ensuring a higher standard of living for those who have the least, everyone will be better off.

Vote FOR.

You failed to answer my question. (Well, ok. You did answer it, but I seek clarification)

Corperations may be multi-national, but they adhere to the laws of thier host nation. While I might have no problem with workers in my nation forming labour unions, other nations in my region have economies that are very pro-buisness and have powerhouses for economies because of it. What gives the United Nations the right to tell a nation that is already very good at managing thier economy what to do?

What gives the United Nations the right to tell a nation that is already very good at managing thier economy what to do?
The fact that they joined the UN.

Arguing about the UN's 'right' is not going to get you far. Better to concentrate on the UN's ability. In this case, can it account for 30,000 economic exegencies? I would say not.

Fair enough.

However, it is highly disheartening to watch as a powerhouse economy decreases once a UN Economic Policy takes over. Regardless of the good intentions of this law, cooperations can simply move into a non-UN nation and set up shop there. This would decrease the economy in nations that formally did not have unions. Prices would go up to make up for lost revenues and higher wages. This isn't certain to happen, but it could go ethier way depending on the nation's economy. To set up a drastic change and implement it so broadly will mean that some member nations will see a decrease in their economy. Sure, some will improve, but certainly not all.

* When workers make enough money to be able to provide the basic necessities for themselves and their families, and still have money to spare, they gain purchasing power, which they can use to consume and invest. -> When they consume and invest, demand for goods and services increases internationally. -> When purchasing power, and thereby demand increases, employers (corporations and businesses) can sell more of their surplus goods and services, and thus make more money. -> And once again, when the employers (corporations and businesses) make more money, the state makes more money.

It was hard to pick in the midst of pure genius, but this one deserves the Voodoo Economic Argument of the Year Award.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/114571/2/istockphoto_114571_airbrush_art_a_voodoo_statue.jpg
Here ya go.

It was hard to pick in the midst of pure genius, but this one deserves the Voodoo Economic Argument of the Year Award.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/114571/2/istockphoto_114571_airbrush_art_a_voodoo_statue.jpg
Here ya go.

Wow, on par with ol' Rollie. I don't know whether to be flattered, insulted, or just scared of myself... ;)

But yeah, I guess you could say it's a sort of 'socialist voodoo economics' reasoning.

Fourhearts, I should probably clarify that my argument wasn't only directed at you or in response to your question (even though I believe I answered it in a fairly comprehensive way). Rather, it was a general argument in favour of this proposal, and a counter argument for those (most notably SaintlyLand) who claim that paying workers fair wages isn't beneficial for the economy, and even that it is harmful to the economy.

Your question merely provided a good pretext and starting point for entering this discussion.

Fair enough.

However, it is highly disheartening to watch as a powerhouse economy decreases once a UN Economic Policy takes over. Regardless of the good intentions of this law, cooperations can simply move into a non-UN nation and set up shop there. This would decrease the economy in nations that formally did not have unions. Prices would go up to make up for lost revenues and higher wages. This isn't certain to happen, but it could go ethier way depending on the nation's economy. To set up a drastic change and implement it so broadly will mean that some member nations will see a decrease in their economy. Sure, some will improve, but certainly not all.

Your powerhouse economy won't decrease

Reason: It's a human rights, not social justice proposal.

Your powerhouse economy won't decrease

Reason: It's a human rights, not social justice proposal.
Roleplay isn't just statwank for some people.

With regret, Ausserland has voted NO on this resolution.

We believe that unions can be and often are very positive forces in a nation's life. We agree with the intent of the resolution and all but one of its provisions. Unfortunately, that one provision has compelled us to cast a negative vote.

Unions are guaranteed the right to strike, with the exceptions listed in clause 3. Clause 3c excepts "Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation...." We consider this exception to be intolerably and dangerously narrow. It would hamstring our nation in fulfilling its responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the populace.

There are many situations in which strikes could seriously harm the health of the people and damage their economic wellbeing, but would not directly endanger life. This resolution would leave our nation powerless to prevent them. We cannot accept that the health and welfare of the many should be endangered to satisfy the demands of the few.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I hate to interupt the economic debate, but what's wrong with letting each nation decide for themselves what is best?

Because this is not a matter of nations, but of employers and employees.

The key point is that workers are allowed to be represented, or represent other workers. If all nations would be sensible about this, it wouldn't be necessary to do this at UN level, but as they aren't, it is.

But feel free to try to convince me that this really should be decided by each nation.

Corperations may be multi-national, but they adhere to the laws of thier host nation. While I might have no problem with workers in my nation forming labour unions, other nations in my region have economies that are very pro-buisness and have powerhouses for economies because of it. What gives the United Nations the right to tell a nation that is already very good at managing thier economy what to do?

There's more to life (and work) than profits. A nation might be an economic powerhouse with only a few percent profiting from it, and a majority not earning a penny or working under slave-like conditions. This resolution gives people a chance to get some redistribution of wealth done. The total would be the same, just more people profiting from it. It's not certain that it will work, but at least they're allowed to try.

Since it's spending on military increase, Cantr has been almost desperately attempting to rebuild our economy, the last thing we need is you people of the UN attempting to take away our right to rebuild our economy by any means necesarry. I've taken steps to try and improve the life of the poor, cut back on taxes, and yet my economy still hovers, utterly fragile, between strength and implosion. This resolution would destroy that balance. I must vote against it. If it is passed I may be forced to leave the UN. This will, by no means aid our poor, as once the economy crashes there will be less money for everyone. Look at the big picture, people, the poor may suffer a bit now, but things will look up in the future if they just keep working.

It is apparent that supporters on both sides in this issue at least agree on one thing, and that is that the work of labour unions - whether through collective bargaining or industrial actions such as strikes - leads to higher wages for workers.


By ensuring a higher standard of living for those who have the least, everyone will be better off.


Nice post, but two things I want to say about it:

1. I disagree with what you say we all agree with. I disagree that allowing unions will result in higher wages for workers. Why? Simply because, when the economy suffers, everyone suffers. When jobs more elsewhere, wages drop (supply and demand), and while properly controled unions may benefit many average workers, uncontrolled unions (such as the ones allowed by this resolution) can get out of control, and hurt everyone more than they help anyone.

2. This is a statement that all socialists/communists (Groot Grouda) would agree with, and one that many liberals would also agree with. However, it is one that I disagree with. Bi-partisan legislation such as this one should not be passed in the UN. That is part of the reason why I'd like to propose resolutions need 2/3 support in order to pass. As it stands, 2/5 of UN nations disagree with this proposal. 2/5 of UN nations believe that this proposal will harm their nations, hurt their economies, and hurt their common workers. This is a classic example of a law passed by a majority that really only affects the minority (since those in support of it already enacted it in their nations). Kind of like male legislators passing a law outlawing dresses. Men don't wear dresses in the first place, so it doesn't affect them. This goes along with what has been discussed recently - this is a national matter, not a UN matter. (OK, I'll stop rambling now)

Lastly, I'll throw this in for what it is worth. You asked if the people exist to serve the market or if the market exists to serve the people. The obvious answer is, the market exists to serve the people, and I'm going to agree. Whatever we do, aught to serve the people. But massive inflation, pitiful economies, and fewer jobs is not how we are going to serve the people. We need to vote for the people, and we need to vote for justice and freedom. We must vote AGAINST this resolution.

My Kingdom agrees comrades in turning down this idiotic proposal of Labor Unions, they will destroy our economy and weaken society. We must stand strong and exercise asbolute control over our Nation's productive force.

Since it's spending on military increase, Cantr has been almost desperately attempting to rebuild our economy, the last thing we need is you people of the UN attempting to take away our right to rebuild our economy by any means necesarry. I've taken steps to try and improve the life of the poor, cut back on taxes, and yet my economy still hovers, utterly fragile, between strength and implosion.

This resolution just grants the right of workers to get organised. That doesn't have to damage an economy - it may even improve it as working conditions get better and increase production levels.

The Democratic Republic of Nasavia has decided to vote against this resolution.

We feel that Unions do more harm to than good to society in general by causing contention between employer and employee and we are not willing to take that risk.

Thank you for your time.

The Democratic Republic of Nasavia has decided to vote against this resolution.

We feel that Unions do more harm to than good to society in general by causing contention between employer and employee and we are not willing to take that risk.

Thank you for your time.

I would, with all respect due to the honourable delegate for Nasavia being given, disagree with his analysis. Conflict of some kind between a workforce and their employers is inevitable, simply because the goals of the two sets of workers are different. The employers think on a corporate level and the employees on a more individual, personal level. These two interests will not always co-incide (i.e. pay disputes, hours disputes, overtime, etc) and the oppositions in philosophy inherent in this structure will never be solved without any kind of contention.

We would re-iterate our support for this proposal and urge all delegates to vote yes.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The employers think on a corporate level and the employees on a more individual, personal level.
Ugh, you allow your workers to think? There's your problem.

This resolution just grants the right of workers to get organised. That doesn't have to damage an economy - it may even improve it as working conditions get better and increase production levels.

Well, lets take a look at what unions have done to NS economies. After all, we agree that unions are an important part of groot_gouda's economy, so why don't we take a look at it?

For those who would like to see the stats I am looking at, you can find it here: http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=International_Democratic_Union&nation=groot_gouda
Now, taking a look at the facts, we see a nation that holds unions to be sacrosanct (and, in fact, proposed to require all other nations to do the same - so that our economies would be just like this one), we see an economy that is "imploded" (or pitiful), we see a nation that has the smallest GDP per capita in the region (and a rather large region at that - at least at the time I am writing this), we see a nation with extreme inflation (another disadvantage I claimed - 226.1995 Florins = $1), and we see a nation that has an unemployment rate of 14.89%. Oh, and did I mention this one? We see a nation that holds unions to be sacrosanct, and proposes we enact this legislation so our economies will be just like this one - dead or "imploded"

To be fair, here is a link to my nation's economy and other statistics: http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=saintlyland
What do we see here? We see a nation that controls and limits unions, we see an economy that is "Very Strong", we see a nation that has a much higher GDP per capita (as well as a much higher GDP), we see a nation with little inflation and strong currency (1.2514 orleans = $1), and we see a nation that has an unemployment rate of a mere 5.11%. Oh, and did I mention this one? We see a nation that limits and controls unions, and a nation that is strongly AGAINST this legislation so that my economy will stay "Very strong" instead of "imploded"

What I said all along is proven right here. Enact this legislation and the economy will suffer greatly, inflation will rise, and yes, unemployment will rise. The common workers won't be helded at all - in fact, nobody will be helped.

Here we see both sides of the issue. We see a nation that is strongly for this legislation (actually proposed it), and we see a nation that is strongly against it. The choice is yours. If you would like an economy that is "imploded" as well as all the other problems that are obvious from these facts (I won't go down the long list again), then by all means, vote for it. If, on the other hand, you want a "Very Strong" economy without all the other disadvantages, I'd suggest that should vote AGAINST this resolution.

Sincerely,
Saintlyland

Ugh, you allow your workers to think? There's your problem.

When we've finished turning them into drones that won't be a problem, but for the moment some individuals persist. Curse their independence of thought!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: I am not familiar with the British system. It works here, that's all I know. They could try not to, but what would be the point? Unions know too that if they ask too much, they're only biting themselves. Ask for too much wage and suddenly you need to negotiate about a lot of redundancy packages.

OOC: Nevertheless, they did so... Some of them were unions of government employees, for example in the then-nationalised industries (such as the water & electricity industries... or some car-building concerns that have since collapsed) & the National Health Service, who presumably assumed that the government could just "find" as much money as was needed, and maybe the others just saw those ones getting a lot more money -- while inflation soared, reducing their members' spending power -- and wanted the same sort of rises... It isn't only politicians who can take a short-term view...

And, that being so, why should everybody assume that a system which works for you would work for everybody else, when there's RL evidence that unions can work (or not work) differently in different countries?

--snip--
OOC: The irony is that if you use the NSEconomy calculator, your economic ratings will actually improve if this resolution passes, since the Civil Rights value tends towards higher results.

The employers think on a corporate level

Even if they're government agencies rather than corporations?

Even if they're government agencies rather than corporations?

Well yes and no: Yes in that most nationalised industries have to, whether by design or not, compete in a global economy and against market-based and sustained competitors. Therefore, regardless of social objectives, they have a goal to stay solvent and prosperous and not simply hanging like a bureaucratic albertross round the neck of the nation. On the other hand, it is true that services delivering merit or public goods will not be using competition nor market principles as a matter of strategy, therefore the statement was something of a generalisation. Yet equally, as a final point, even in the government agencies delivering public services, targets and quotas are the norm and there is a degree of friction between the front-line workers and the management for the fulfillment of these goals.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Last edited by Qazox : Today at 6:17 AM. Reason: me no speel goodly Okk?

OOC: What in God's name is that supposed to mean? Who the bloody hell is Qazok and why is his message showing up on my post?

OOC: The irony is that if you use the NSEconomy calculator, your economic ratings will actually improve if this resolution passes, since the Civil Rights value tends towards higher results.

I see nothing to back that up. I've pointed out the facts, and seen none to contradict them. If you'd like to point some facts out (not just opinions), then I'd be happy to hear them. As for civil rights, I'd say that this resolution actually hurts civil rights - the civil rights of the employers (the ones that most effect the economy).

I see nothing to back that up. I've pointed out the facts, and seen none to contradict them. If you'd like to point some facts out (not just opinions), then I'd be happy to hear them. As for civil rights, I'd say that this resolution actually hurts civil rights - the civil rights of the employers (the ones that most effect the economy).
OOC:

Yeah, you don't understand.

The game mechanics of NationStates are fairly simple, or so we're told. A Human Rights resolution has no affect on economy, at all. Now, we choose to roleplay effects, but that's different.

NSEconomy is a calculator based solely on NS game stats. It doesn't 'know' how we roleplay our nations. And its formula for economic strength sees civil rights - as measured by NS, not by our roleplay - as counting towards a strong economy. So it would see a Human Rights proposal even as 'pro-economy', even though I imagine you and I would both roleplay it as 'anti-economy'.

OOC: What in God's name is that supposed to mean? Who the bloody hell is Qazok and why is his message showing up on my post?
Jolt is being buggy.

Jolt is being buggy.

OOC: Ah, as per usual.

OOC:

Yeah, you don't understand.

The game mechanics of NationStates are fairly simple, or so we're told. A Human Rights resolution has no affect on economy, at all. Now, we choose to roleplay effects, but that's different.

NSEconomy is a calculator based solely on NS game stats. It doesn't 'know' how we roleplay our nations. And its formula for economic strength sees civil rights - as measured by NS, not by our roleplay - as counting towards a strong economy. So it would see a Human Rights proposal even as 'pro-economy', even though I imagine you and I would both roleplay it as 'anti-economy'.
Interesting, but who decides that it is pro-economy? Why couldn't we pass a human rights proposal that actualyl hurts human rights (which, in my opion, is what is about to happen with this one)?

Interesting, but who decides that it is pro-economy? Why couldn't we pass a human rights proposal that actualyl hurts human rights...?
Because the mods would delete it.

I see nothing to back that up. I've pointed out the facts, and seen none to contradict them. If you'd like to point some facts out (not just opinions), then I'd be happy to hear them. As for civil rights, I'd say that this resolution actually hurts civil rights - the civil rights of the employers (the ones that most effect the economy).

How is it that by guaranteeing a right to the 98% of the world that's employees and hurting the rights of the other 2% to infringe upon the right of those employees, we are net hurting civil rights?

How is it that by guaranteeing a right to the 98% of the world that's employees and hurting the rights of the other 2% to infringe upon the right of those employees, we are net hurting civil rights?
Well, for starters, 98% of employees don't join unions. I might go as far as to say well under 50% join (I wish I could finds stats to that effect) unions, but 100% of my nation's citizens will suffer from them. So there is no net gain in civil rights, there is a net loss. As the evidence has shown, passing this resolution hurts our economies, and that, in turn, hurts all of us. Human rights is supposed to improve the quality of one's life, and this resolution does just the opposite.

Unions protect people who slack off. None of its benefits can be soley attributed to it. While at the same time it encourages lazy and sometimes damaging behavior among its members, while making it nearly impossible to do anything to punish the bad workers. Look at what is happening to public education due to the teachers union and at Major League Baseball and how much popularity it lost because of its ridiculous player strike.
-I seriously hate the teachers union, go Charter Schools-

To phrase Schartlefritzen's stand as succintly as possible, if this resolution passes we will be withdrawing from the United Nations. Next you'll expect us to pay terrorists to attack us.

Knight Matthieu Tertulien
Ambassador to the UN
Republic of Schartlefritzen

Without the workers, there will be no economy. There is a need for unions for the overall safety and well being of our people. Unions will ensure fair wages, fair working hours and safe working conditions. Yes, it will hurt the economy slightly- but I feel that is a price that has to be paid.

This resolution just grants the right of workers to get organised. That doesn't have to damage an economy - it may even improve it as working conditions get better and increase production levels.

Are you daft? This resolution grants the right of workers to stop working, not lose their jobs, and have the support of more fortunate nations whose economy is so large that the damage of these unions is not noticed. Workers being more productive due to better working conditions? Hardly. There is a balance of happiness and misery that keeps workers productive. Unions wish to bring on to much happiness, thus drowning the workers in the happiness just as much as they'd be in misery and then becoming less productive. Economy's will be shattered.

As for the economy/calculator comment, I'm trying to look at a big picture that the calculator doesn't show. For example, all my budgets are much lower due to the astronomical costs of my having recently built a tattered militia into an army. I promise the calculator won't show this. My roleplaying will.

On a final note, I ask you to realize that the big picture clearly stands against unions. When unions exist, productivity plummets, the economy is hurt, and no one's happy. When unions do not, the government makes sure workers are treated as human beings, not human resources, the economy goes up, and everyone has that much more money.

Well, for starters, 98% of employees don't join unions. I might go as far as to say well under 50% join (I wish I could finds stats to that effect) unions,

6% in the US, if you must know.

Amazing how such a small percentage can have such a "drastic" effect upon your economy

Anyways, 98% of citizens aren't gay, but we still call it human rights. Why? Because we want the right to be there for the majority of the population incase they ever are the minority.

but 100% of my nation's citizens will suffer from them.

There is a severe logic error from that one. Your citizens do not lose any rights from this "suffering" - and dear god if you think a 2% inflation rate is so drastically problematic.

So there is no net gain in civil rights, there is a net loss.

I note that in your original post, you were weighing employers vs employees - which I find humorous especially since your argument changed.

Suffering != losing rights.

And seriously, how do 100% suffer?

As the evidence has shown, passing this resolution hurts our economies, and that, in turn, hurts all of us.

No. You have proven nothing. In fact, you have actually done more damage to your own argument from your blindedness than you have made successful attempts at actually proving your argument.

Human rights is supposed to improve the quality of one's life, and this resolution does just the opposite.

Actually:

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

It doesn't say that anywhere. It says it improves one's rights.

And seriously, your argument is so horribly flawed, I can't even fathom why you're standing behind it.

6% in the US, if you must know.
Amazing how such a small percentage can have such a "drastic" effect upon your economy
Indeed it is, but facts are facts.

Anyways, 98% of citizens aren't gay, but we still call it human rights. Why? Because we want the right to be there for the majority of the population incase they ever are the minority.
That didn't make sense to me. Are you saying we need to defend gay rights just in case they ever become the minority?

There is a severe logic error from that one. Your citizens do not lose any rights from this "suffering" - and dear god if you think a 2% inflation rate is so drastically problematic.
Actually, the difference in the examples I posted was much more than 2% And yes, the workers do lose rights when unions are formed- rights such as working an honest job (unions can get rather protective and at times militant towards non-union members), rights such as the right to get paid extra because they can be counted on to work even when the times get tough (and the others are on strike). While were on the topic of rights, this resolution infringes on many nation's rights to decide the matter themselves.

I note that in your original post, you were weighing employers vs employees - which I find humorous especially since your argument changed.
Suffering != losing rights.
And seriously, how do 100% suffer?

I fail to see how my argument has changed. Perhaps it has expanded, but not changed. If we enact this plan, employers lose rights, individuals lose rights, everyone loses quality of life, and thousands of nations lose rights.
And seriously, an "imploded" economy makes everyone suffer. Everyone suffered during the depression (sure, the rich didn't suffer as much as the poor, but they all suffered to some extent).

No. You have proven nothing. In fact, you have actually done more damage to your own argument from your blindedness than you have made successful attempts at actually proving your argument.
I could say the same to you. Making personal attacks doesn't get us anywhere

It doesn't say that anywhere. It says it improves one's rights.
but, at the same time, and I don't think we'll dispute this, it decreases employer's rights, and the rights of each individual nation.

And seriously, your argument is so horribly flawed, I can't even fathom why you're standing behind it.
Again, personal or "ad hominen" attacks aren't going to get us anywhere.

You really didn't bring up any points. You questioned my reasoning, and I hope I explained it a little better, but I would like to think we can do better than make personal attacks to argue this resolution

Buon Giorno,

While I believe in allowing blue collar unions, to a certain point, I can't support this because I don't believe this is an international issue. It is true that Corporations are multi-national but no corporation is government run (well none of mine are anyways).

While nations should be allowed to allow Unions, or disallow them, I don't think this would be beneficial to a lot of small, or economically weak nations. The nations that corporations go to for cheaper wages, do (unfortunately) still support that nations people. While it is a very low payment, for the economies corporations normally go to, it is enough money for these people to support themselves. I believe that if all UN nations were forced to allow Unions, these people who rely on outsourcing would lose their jobs because Corporations would just move their bases and factories to non-UN nations who didn't have Unions.

While I support unions, I cannot enforce this internationally because what happens to the economies of other nations should not be in my hands.

OOC: The irony is that if you use the NSEconomy calculator, your economic ratings will actually improve if this resolution passes, since the Civil Rights value tends towards higher results.

OOC: That's only to a certain point. If you have too many civil rights (too many political rights also) then it begins to weaken your economy, or so it has when my ranks have soared.


http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7747/ssig7hf.png

OOC: That's only to a certain point. If you have too many civil rights (too many political rights also) then it begins to weaken your economy, or so it has when my ranks have soared.
OOC: Something I doubt "Below Average" SaintlyLand need be concerned with.

Maeri backs this resolution, as people should have the right to form unions. True, they can hurt the economy, but we feel that it is better to have a slightly weaker economy than it is to have workers in horrible conditions.

OOC: Something I doubt "Below Average" SaintlyLand need be concerned with.

OOC: True, although I'd rather have Excellent political freedoms and Below average civil rights then Average civil freedoms and Few political ones.

OOC: True, although I'd rather have Excellent political freedoms and Below average civil rights then Average civil freedoms and Few political ones.
OOC: If that's a jab at Gruenberg...it doesn't reflect my RL views. Nor was I 'insulting' SL based on his nation's stats in a computer game. Just making what was intended as an off-hand comment, as he seemed to be misunderstanding the nature of the calculator he was quoting.

Seriously, when the NatSovs are attacking your arguments, not mine - I think it's YOU who's got the weaker argument

I'm losing braincells here so I'm out.

OOC: If that's a jab at Gruenberg...it doesn't reflect my RL views. Nor was I 'insulting' SL based on his nation's stats in a computer game. Just making what was intended as an off-hand comment, as he seemed to be misunderstanding the nature of the calculator he was quoting.

OOC: Not a jab, just a comment. I'm a bit of a semantics man...

i can't believe this resolution is about to pass. has anyone actually taken the time to look at the state the author's nation is in? the economy is imploded and the tax rate is 100%. the people in that country have nothing. groot gouda has no business meddling in the economies of others.

i can't believe this resolution is about to pass. has anyone actually taken the time to look at the state the author's nation is in? the economy is imploded and the tax rate is 100%. the people in that country have nothing. groot gouda has no business meddling in the economies of others.

OOC:
My government's economy is typically frightening or something else "strong", and yet the game stats claim I have over a 100% tax rate.

The way the game works is taxes increase with certain issues and *rarely* go down, because there are fewer issues that actually decrease taxes.

Essentially NationStates is broken, afterall, would you really believe that there could be HUNDREDS of nations on Earth with a population of over 4 billion each? Of course not ... and if you want to argue that the populations are in outerspace too, the daily issues which determine silly stats such as tax rates are clearly terrestial based ... they make plenty of assumptions that we live in near-RL nations on a planet similar to Earth populated by *people* that aren't too unlike modern day humans.

OOC:
My government's economy is typically frightening or something else "strong", and yet the game stats claim I have over a 100% tax rate.

The way the game works is taxes increase with certain issues and *rarely* go down, because there are fewer issues that actually decrease taxes.

Essentially NationStates is broken, afterall, would you really believe that there could be HUNDREDS of nations on Earth with a population of over 4 billion each? Of course not ... and if you want to argue that the populations are in outerspace too, the daily issues which determine silly stats such as tax rates are clearly terrestial based ... they make plenty of assumptions that we live in near-RL nations on a planet similar to Earth populated by *people* that aren't too unlike modern day humans.


hmm, i seem to be able to keep my tax rate in the 10%-25% range. funny that. i have a good economy, good civil rights, and good political freedoms and still manage to leave enough money to my citizens for them to have a decent quality of life. funny that.

hmm, i seem to be able to keep my tax rate in the 10%-25% range. funny that. i have a good economy, good civil rights, and good political freedoms and still manage to leave enough money to my citizens for them to have a decent quality of life. funny that.

If you dismiss enough issues, and work at it continually, you can keep your taxes under control. No one is claiming otherwise. However, if you answer every single issue, you will be much more hard pressed to keep your taxes under control while maintaining good stats.

Let's back to debating actual issues, such as:

- Why is the military allowed to unionise?
- Why are people allowed to strike when such action will indirectly endanger citizens' lives, and why is other industrial action which directly endangers lives permitted?
- Just easy is it to completely neuter these unions?

hmm, i seem to be able to keep my tax rate in the 10%-25% range. funny that. i have a good economy, good civil rights, and good political freedoms and still manage to leave enough money to my citizens for them to have a decent quality of life. funny that.

There is nothing funny about that.

Your nation is 114 million or so people. Groot Gouda, Mikitivity, and THOUSANDS of other nations are well on their way to 5 BILLION.

My point: when you play this game for more than two months, you'll hit some stinker issues, and your tax rate will go up *or* your crime may increase while other game stats will begin to fall down.

As I read your current stats: "Graffiti artists spend lengthy periods of time in jail, the nation is currently revamping its entire education system, students are known to arrive at school in their pyjamas, and the poor are often seen pale and dizzy after selling their blood to make ends meet."

I see a nation of trying to improve its education system, but with a growing problem with poverty and some rather toletarian laws ... throwing people in jail for spray painting something???

Gruenberg is right, debate the resolution, not the messenger because many of *know* that the NationStates game engine is poorly designed and consider game stats "broken", hence my earlier reference to a world filled with 1,000 billions of people.

The Free Land of Sativan does not currently abridge the rights of the people to form labor unions, however we do stand against the formation of international union federations. We believe that Unions, like governments, serve the people best when they are based in local communities, so that the people may properly control a union to serve the best interests of their community. Though we recognize that many businesses are international, it harldy seems fitting to counteract one evil with another by turning the voice of the laborer into another unwieldy mega-corporation in disguise.

So, though we agree with this resolution in spirit, due to this and article 3, section B (we believe that workers should not be punished for organizing strikes outside of a union), we must dissent on this issue.

This resolution in essence undermines the current government of Vita Beata.

Morality is the role of the state. We believe that there are enough failed experiments elsewhere in the world to demonstrate that decentralized and democritized systems of right and wrong ultimately end in selfishness and harmful individualism of one flavor or another.

Do we believe in fair pay and fair conditions for workers? Very much so. Do we believe in strikes, "grassroots" unions, and other institutions formed by the ill-informed to legislate their own form of "fair?" Absolutely not.

Vita Beata has its own systems in place to handle unfair conditions. They do not involve these barely-tethered riots you seek to legalize in our borders. They do not involve systems of peer pressure and reduced productivity. Above all, they do not support the rights of workers who are not working.

I strongly urge everyone to vote against this resolution. This is not about fairness or economic benefit. This is about legalizing civil unrest and the chaotic political systems of the heathen states. We welcome all foreigners to allow strikes and unions and lynching mobs and whatever other forms of insurrection are seen as valuable. We, however, will not.

My point: when you play this game for more than two months, you'll hit some stinker issues, and your tax rate will go up *or* your crime may increase while other game stats will begin to fall down.

As I read your current stats: "Graffiti artists spend lengthy periods of time in jail, the nation is currently revamping its entire education system, students are known to arrive at school in their pyjamas, and the poor are often seen pale and dizzy after selling their blood to make ends meet."

I see a nation of trying to improve its education system, but with a growing problem with poverty and some rather toletarian laws ... throwing people in jail for spray painting something???

Gruenberg is right, debate the resolution, not the messenger because many of *know* that the NationStates game engine is poorly designed and consider game stats "broken", hence my earlier reference to a world filled with 1,000 billions of people.

the game engine won't change no matter how long you continue to play. my tax rate has remained relatively stable, and will continue to remain stable, due to the fact that the government doesn't need to become involved in every issue. there have been many cases where i would prefer to take a specific course of action, but can see it would cost the taxpayers too much. so this issue gets dismissed. the economy isn't limitless.

there is no poverty problem, at least no more than there is in any other nation. there will always be poor people, not dealing with them doesn't mean they aren't there. and yes people being thrown in jail for vandalism. a couple nights in the pokey might teach them some respect for what isn't theirs.

and how do you know the engine is poorly designed? because your tax rate is so high, this means it must be the game. it couldn't be the decisions you've made. pointing to the population doesn't really make a point. perhaps it's simply a much larger world.

Perhaps you need to stop with the crazed, non-sensical ramblings and discuss UNIONS.

The arguments being presented against this proposal are almost enough to make me vote for it. Can't someone please come up with a fairly decent post?

The Socialist Republic will not support Right to form Labour Unions, as it is completely incompatible with Xanthalian economic law to the extent that, if it is passed, it will be blocked from taking effect in the Republic by the state legislature. Right to form Labour Unions fails to take into consideration socialist and communist nations where worker compensation is provided according to set formulas based upon job description and individual performance.

While labor unions may be essential representative bodies in a responsibly arbitrated capitalist economy, they would lay ruin to radical left-wing economies such as Xanthal's. If workers gain relatively higher wages or greater benefits, the public service sector becomes imbalanced as national revenue is diverted to a single group. If workers strike for an extended period of time, vital links in the chain of a planned economy are lost, with no market mechanism to compensate for them.

The Socialist Republic has the utmost respect for all citizens, and is proud to have the highest Gross Domestic Product Per Capita, most valuable currency, and greatest income equality in its region. Our public services support all training, contributing, and retired citizens. This system is maintained by the diligent effort of the Xanthalian government and a careful adherance to collection and distribution codes. Right to form Labour Unions is well-intentioned, but it would bring only disorder and poverty to our nation. It is our sincere hope that the resolution will fail, sparing us the need to refuse compliance with U.N. law on this matter.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Right to form Labour Unions fails to take into consideration socialist and communist nations where worker compensation is provided according to set formulas based upon job description and individual performance.
As opposed to evil capitalist nations, which compute daily wage based on the colour of your underwear and hairstyle.

While labor unions may be essential representative bodies in a responsibly arbitrated capitalist economy, they would lay ruin to radical left-wing economies such as Xanthal's. If workers gain relatively higher wages or greater benefits, the public service sector becomes imbalanced as national revenue is diverted to a single group. If workers strike for an extended period of time, vital links in the chain of a planned economy are lost, with no market mechanism to compensate for them.
Errr...
1) If wages are high, it is because the country is rich, not because of economic system. Check RL data, please.
2) Excessively high wages damage the economy. This again is true in all economic systems.
3) Your desire to prevent strikes is called an authoritarian governement. Independently of economic system.

The Socialist Republic has the utmost respect for all citizens, and is proud to have the highest Gross Domestic Product Per Capita, most valuable currency, and greatest income equality in its region.
Congratulations. (By the way, most valuable currency earns you the Irrelevant Economic Goal of the Year award.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/VAS/0000-4234-4.jpg
Here ya go.)

Our public services support all training, contributing, and retired citizens. This system is maintained by the diligent effort of the Xanthalian government and a careful adherance to collection and distribution codes. Right to form Labour Unions is well-intentioned, but it would bring only disorder and poverty to our nation.
I fail to see how such a benevolent social planner would have anything to fear from workers. Maybe they are happy because you decide so, and they secretly wish they would be rewarded on their merits? Maybe the disorder you mention is free expression of different political ideals? Dunno...

It is our sincere hope that the resolution will fail, sparing us the need to refuse compliance with U.N. law on this matter.
Good luck in the Great Gnomish Wars that ensue.

I disagree with what you say we all agree with. I disagree that allowing unions will result in higher wages for workers.

o_O You contradict yourself then, because you said this back on page #4:

Unions are an important part of fair wages, but lets take a look at what unions have done in a real nation - the USA.
Outsourcing is a big problem that many people seem to be complaining about (and rightly so), but outsourcing wouldn't be a problem if unions didn't demand quite as much as they do. That is the biggest problem with unions.

And this at page #6:

Unions raise employee salaries which in turn either increases the cost of products (and thus, increases inflation) or decreases the amount of profit that business make (thus hurting the economy).

So which is it?

Do unions help raise worker wages, or do they not?

If you acknowledge that they do, I believe I've already explained comprehensively how higher worker wages in fact are beneficial for national economies.

If you claim that they don't, your entire argument (that unions are disastrous for national economies and lead to outsorcing of jobs to low wage nations) is self contradictory and crumbles like a house of cards.

So which is it?

Do unions help raise worker wages, or do they not?

If you acknowledge that they do, I believe I've already explained comprehensively how higher worker wages in fact are beneficial for national economies.

If you claim that they don't, your entire argument (that unions are disastrous for national economies and lead to outsorcing of jobs to low wage nations) is self contradictory and crumbles like a house of cards.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Unions result in temporarily higher wages, but when (and if) they get out of control, wages will plummet because of those very same wages. I don't believe I have contradicted myself, just not made myself clear enough. Yes, unions will result in higher wages, BUT if and when they get out of control, they will result in just the opposite (again, business going out of business, results in less jobs, which results in less wages thanks to supply and demand)

Look at what the Unions did to General Motors, which in turn reacted in a way that hurt the workers and crippled the Flint economy. The wages and exorbitant benefits made it impossible for GM to be competitive. So, they turned overseas to find labor.

We're global now, people. In order to compete, corporations will go to the low cost area to find non-skilled labor. If Unions are insisting on $56 an hour jobs and 35 hr work weeks, those jobs won't stay domestic. They'll go overseas.

Unions had their place 100 yrs ago when companies were demanding 16 hr work days out of people for worthless wages and, yes, Unions helped us out of that. However, in today's market the only entity Unions look out for is, Unions.

I've seen a number of Union employees stuck in wage freezes that lasted 5 yrs or more because the Union representatives insisted on quibbling over useless details.

i can't believe this resolution is about to pass. has anyone actually taken the time to look at the state the author's nation is in?

I can't believe how low the level of so called debate is in this august body. I thought this was about the resolution, not the writer. As the saying goes, a broken mechanical clock stil tells the correct time twice a day. Yes even a moron who can't get his economy up and running can come up with a good idea, and vice versa sometimes the genius who runs the most powerful economy in existance can come up with the candidate for the worst idea of all time!

On to a completely different thought. :p

It looks like if this resolution passes that a repeal might be placed soon into the queue. So remember your arguments because it's going to be deja vu all over again.

Meanwhile I suppose I should debate the issue? :rolleyes:

Do unions help raise worker wages, or do they not?

I have asked a number of my advisors on this matter and they all seem to agree on one thing, "well that all depends." Indeed it does. What is a "wage" for example. Technically every benefit a company gives the employer is technically a form of payment. Increased benefits technically should be considered increased wages and in any case result in increased costs.

My advisors, unfortunately, spend too much time in some sort of role playing game called the "real world" and they love to quote from it. So here is an example. In the mythical land of the US there are two companies in the automobile industry, GM and Toyota. The former is union, the latter is not. You might wonder are the wages in GM higher than that of Toyota? The answer is no. So was the union helping to raise the worker wage? The answer is yes. Because of the free market nature of the RW, the non union company still had to offer a similiar package to employees as the package offered by GM to their workers because if they did not they would loose productive workers to GM.

If comodity gravitates to the company that offers it for the lowest price (because customers want low prices) it also gravitates to the company that offers the highest wage (because customers want high wages). This leaves most companies in a very odd bind, but that odd bind has another name, productivity. The most productive companies win because they make both sides very happy. Those who can't fall victim to economic survival of the fittest.

Well, lets take a look at what unions have done to NS economies. After all, we agree that unions are an important part of groot_gouda's economy, so why don't we take a look at it?

You're being silly, my economy is more than just unions. Someone has already shown the RL example of the USA doing pretty good considering that they're allowing unions.

(besides, at the age of my nation, it becomes increasingly hard to change the stats with the daily issues, as most is pretty set in its ways it seems)

And, that being so, why should everybody assume that a system which works for you would work for everybody else, when there's RL evidence that unions can work (or not work) differently in different countries?

I'm not prescribing a system, I merely allow people to organize themselves into unions. Whatever happens next depends on the nation itself, but there's plenty of wriggling room in this resolution for that.

Well, for starters, 98% of employees don't join unions. I might go as far as to say well under 50% join (I wish I could finds stats to that effect) unions, but 100% of my nation's citizens will suffer from them.

They don't suffer, they profit. Better and safer working conditions, more income: more happiness, more people spending, up goes your economy.

Are you daft? This resolution grants the right of workers to stop working, not lose their jobs,

Please learn to read. This resolutions does not say anything about that, except in the case of striking (which is a necessary means of reaching a goal, because if striking isn't an option there is no pressure on employers to do something).

and have the support of more fortunate nations whose economy is so large that the damage of these unions is not noticed. Workers being more productive due to better working conditions? Hardly. There is a balance of happiness and misery that keeps workers productive. Unions wish to bring on to much happiness, thus drowning the workers in the happiness just as much as they'd be in misery and then becoming less productive. Economy's will be shattered.

Nonsense. Happy people are more productive, miserable people are less productive. You can see it in every company. There's no such thing as becoming so happy one is miserable.

On a final note, I ask you to realize that the big picture clearly stands against unions. When unions exist, productivity plummets, the economy is hurt, and no one's happy. When unions do not, the government makes sure workers are treated as human beings, not human resources, the economy goes up, and everyone has that much more money.

For those nations that do not have a great government like you protecting the workers, there are unions. If the situation is as you describe it, no person should feel inclined to join a union and you won't be affected by this resolution.

It doesn't matter whether the government helps workers or a union; in both cases, the same thing happens so the result is the same: a stronger economy.

Right to form Union is something important for sustainable economic growth, and we favour it.

We were hoping that, following the previous repeal on this topic, a sensible and pragmatical proposal will reach quorum on this topic, and not one based on theorical beliefs.

As we have said in the drafting process, this proposal is discriminatory towards workers who are not members of unions, no matter that most workers in economically developping nations are not members of a union.

Furthermore, despite many post from us and other nations on this topic, this proposal didn't achieve to be more balanced and didn't secure basic/minimum public services, such as water, electricity, public transportation, in order to no stop everydaylife.

It's why we are very sad ,we don't want to vote against a union proposal, but cannot for this one.

Bejerot and the World Society have voted against this UN Resolution on the basis that unions should be regulated at the state level and not by an international organisation that is not familiar with the wants and needs of individual member states. There are some huge problems which must be dealt with locally rather than internationally, and this is one of them.

hmm, i seem to be able to keep my tax rate in the 10%-25% range. funny that. i have a good economy, good civil rights, and good political freedoms and still manage to leave enough money to my citizens for them to have a decent quality of life. funny that.

You see, this is where you are taking the wrong road. Tax rates and income say nothing about a decent quality of life. What matters is what you do with that money. You can have a 0% tax rate, but people still need things like healthcare, and at that tax rate they'll have to pay for it at commercial rates. That might create a situation that is not "decent".

What matters is whether people are happy, whether they have access to the services they need (whether commercially or governmentally provided). I could try to lower taxes but with an issue a day that's difficult to achive after nearly 2 years, even if I wanted.

But most importantly, this resolution does not need to impact your economy. All it does is allow people to join a union, and to go on strike (under a few conditions), so they have a "weapon" to use (just like employers have the weapon "firing"). So both sides are more or less equal, and then it's a matter of getting a proper balance between work and pay. That's the free market for you. It depends on each nation how it works out.

Those who are so vocally against probably do not care for a free market, as they seem to think the companies in their nation are not treating their workers well. Otherwise, I cannot explain their fear of companies having to pay higher wages. I also don't see how consumers with more money to spend could harm the economy that is going down - usually economies are hurt when consumers have too much to spend and the economy was going up already (overheating). Then it's a matter of working it out with the unions - with good negotiating it shouldn't be impossible to get an arrangement with unions that benefits all. But that's up to each nation for themselves, this resolution does not interfere with that.

Look at what the Unions did to General Motors, which in turn reacted in a way that hurt the workers and crippled the Flint economy. The wages and exorbitant benefits made it impossible for GM to be competitive. So, they turned overseas to find labor.

Flint is an amazing example of how stupid it is to assume that removal of unions will stop outsourcing. When it was realized that GM was uncompetitive, the unions working at the Flint plant agreed to pay cuts - bringing their pay down to about the range of most non-unionized workers. This only bought them a few years before GM went ahead with plans to set up shop in Mexico - more likely, it made it so that GM could make a bit more profit while it was building its Mexico plant.

We're global now, people. In order to compete, corporations will go to the low cost area to find non-skilled labor. If Unions are insisting on $56 an hour jobs and 35 hr work weeks, those jobs won't stay domestic. They'll go overseas.

It is so wonderful to see that people don't have a clue about what Unions are asking for. $56/hr, 35hr/wk is a 6 digit salary. Do you honestly believe that's what the unions are looking for? I haven't heard of a union aiming for an hourly rate over $25/hr (salary, obviously, there have been higher numbers - *cough*NHLPA*cough*). And those were HOSPITAL staff, not Welders

Now, if that was a typo and you're saying $56 a day - if you think that that's an unreasonable number to ask for, then we will never be able to see eye-to-eye. $56/day I'd see as extortion of the labour, and if that's your argument then I would press even harder for unions to be built in your nation 'cause wow do you have no respect for the worker.

Unions had their place 100 yrs ago when companies were demanding 16 hr work days out of people for worthless wages and, yes, Unions helped us out of that. However, in today's market the only entity Unions look out for is, Unions.

No, but I'm too lazy to find the strikes that have happened in recent history where the union was right. There is one that strikes me, though (pun not intended) - a province-wide teacher strike in my home province of Alberta. While Alberta was raking in a multi-billion dollar surplus, its funding into the education system (which had a LOT more pupils) was still no where close to what it had been 10 years previous when Alberta was running a deficit (and the unions all agreed to a paycut across the board to help - health care, education, etc). The strike lasted 2 weeks and the teachers were forced back to work - arbitration later gave them a 15% raise. Considering they were some of the lowest paid educators in the country at the time and the fact that there was a clear lack of caring from the provincial government about education (still isn't - and thus it has hit #2 in the provincial concerns list), I think that this union action was not only good, but necessary and I think the premise of "unions are no longer needed" to be nothing short of ludicrosity at its best.

I've seen a number of Union employees stuck in wage freezes that lasted 5 yrs or more because the Union representatives insisted on quibbling over useless details.

I've seen provinces shread entire contracts with unions then tell them to get back to work when they strike (British Colombia, a few years ago)

Let's back to debating actual issues, such as:

- Why is the military allowed to unionise?

Because they are doing a job and should have a say in how they can best do that job. Note that the military is not allowed to strike.

- Why are people allowed to strike when such action will indirectly endanger citizens' lives, and why is other industrial action which directly endangers lives permitted?

Your judges will have to say how directly lives are in danger and whether that means that a strike isn't allowed. On other forms of industrial actions, no rules are mentioned, so that's pretty much up to each nation.

The arguments being presented against this proposal are almost enough to make me vote for it.

Now that is saying something, considering the way you run your nation :p

Remember folks, all this resolution does is allow people to:
1) form or join a union
2) go on strike without risk of being fired for that under certain conditions

It doesn't say wages must go up. It doesn't say employers must pay through their noses. It doesn't say your whole nations must stop working. It doesn't say that lazy workers shouldn't be fired. All is does at its most basic form is the above 2 points. Whatever happens next is up to you.

Otherwise, I cannot explain their fear of companies having to pay higher wages. I also don't see how consumers with more money to spend could harm the economy that is going down

You're overlooking the fact that this resolution also affects government employees, whose wage increases would usually come at the expense of the taxpayers in general: In their case that "more money to spend" is because other people have less money to spend, and some of the difference would almost certainly have been diverted into otherwise-unnecessary bureaucracy along the way, so there probably wouldn't be more money being spent by consumers overall...

Now that is saying something, considering the way you run your nation :p

Remember folks, all this resolution does is allow people to:
1) form or join a union
2) go on strike without risk of being fired for that under certain conditions

It doesn't say wages must go up. It doesn't say employers must pay through their noses. It doesn't say your whole nations must stop working. It doesn't say that lazy workers shouldn't be fired. All is does at its most basic form is the above 2 points. Whatever happens next is up to you.

Good. Now if everyone concentrates on that, and steers away from the "higher wages make everyone better off" lunacy, the debate might become a tad more interesting.

Look at what the Unions did to General Motors, which in turn reacted in a way that hurt the workers and crippled the Flint economy. The wages and exorbitant benefits made it impossible for GM to be competitive. So, they turned overseas to find labor.

You seriously think that that wouldn't have happened without unions? Get real. Living standards in the USA are too high, it was inevitable that that wouldn't work out for low-paying industrial jobs.

Don't blame unions for that. It's very simple: people have a full time job and expect that to be enough to pay the rent, food, and all other basic needs. If it doesn't, they will find other work, or if that isn't available at their level, they'll try to get paid more. With or without unions. It's just that unions provide you with a more sensible group of people to negotiate with than an angry mob of factory workers.

As we have said in the drafting process, this proposal is discriminatory towards workers who are not members of unions, no matter that most workers in economically developping nations are not members of a union.

The resolution explicitly forbids discrimination based on union-membership.

Furthermore, despite many post from us and other nations on this topic, this proposal didn't achieve to be more balanced and didn't secure basic/minimum public services, such as water, electricity, public transportation, in order to no stop everydaylife.

This resolution allows workers to stand up and improve their situation. So indirectly, it will help in those areas, although it doesn't claim that it will. I still think there should be a resolution which will ensure access to basic goods, but that's a very tough one to write and get passed. Feel free to give it a try, though.

Bejerot and the World Society have voted against this UN Resolution on the basis that unions should be regulated at the state level

Even with this resolution, they are. There's just a few rules you should follow. The rest is national business. If you don't want the UN to interfere at all, you shouldn't be in it.

You're overlooking the fact that this resolution also affects government employees, whose wage increases would usually come at the expense of the taxpayers in general:

You're doing it again. Stop assuming that wages will go up. They will only go up if someone is willing to pay the price. If nobody does, then there's no payrise.

This resolution does not say wages must go up. Read it!

Unions are great but people of high stature shouldn't get barganing when their already rich.

Your judges will have to say how directly lives are in danger and whether that means that a strike isn't allowed.

Exactly. And if no lives are directly endangered, my nation cannot stop the strike. Garbage can pile up in the streets and rats proliferate. The sewage disposal system can grind to a halt. Small businesses go under because the truckers won't haul merchandise from the wholesalers. Struggling families lose what little savings they have because transportation workers go on strike and hourly wage-earners can't get to work. Non-fatal diseases are allowed to progress untreated because health workers stage a limited stoppage and refuse to treat any but life-threatening situations. Food becomes scarce in the city because long-haul truckers are on strike.

But all of that is just fine, according to this resolution. No lives are directly endangered, so who cares? The holy right to strike is preserved, and the health and welfare of the vast majority of the population that is not on strike is sacrificed on its altar.

We urge our colleagues to vote NO on this generally excellent but dangerously flawed resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

the game engine won't change no matter how long you continue to play. my tax rate has remained relatively stable, and will continue to remain stable, due to the fact that the government doesn't need to become involved in every issue. there have been many cases where i would prefer to take a specific course of action, but can see it would cost the taxpayers too much. so this issue gets dismissed. the economy isn't limitless.

there is no poverty problem, at least no more than there is in any other nation. there will always be poor people, not dealing with them doesn't mean they aren't there. and yes people being thrown in jail for vandalism. a couple nights in the pokey might teach them some respect for what isn't theirs.

and how do you know the engine is poorly designed? because your tax rate is so high, this means it must be the game. it couldn't be the decisions you've made. pointing to the population doesn't really make a point. perhaps it's simply a much larger world.

When you play for more than two months, *new* issues that you aren't yet able to see are made available to you and some of the current crops of issues become less frequent. I think one of the points might be around 500 million, which is still a bit aways for your current nation.

Also, as you remain in the UN, your tax rate will increase.


As for your poverty rate, I quoted your game text ... you want to deny it, fine. Then Groot Gouda and others can deny whatever you choose to quote out of their game text. The truth is if you want to start preaching that a broken game engine is an accurate measure of the credibility (or lack thereof) of a nation, then it is only fair that you open your own decisions to that same criticisms.

I supose that it is time to enter the fray and add my 2 cents worth.*sigh!*

Might as well let y'all know that I'll be opposing this one. I agree that people should have a right to form or belong to a union, with a few exceptions. However I am against allowing international unions into a country. I also believe that there should be some additional responcibilities for unions, to its menbers. First unions should have to get a member's written permission to use union money to support the political campaigns of canidates the member might oppose( or insted give that money to the party the member supports). Also the union should also be held accountable for accidents at the workplace(along with the company) if those accidents were the result of negligence.(ie. the union not pressing the company to fix violations). OOC: In my home state there has been some Coal Mining accidents in a short period of time(coal being one of the primary industries of WV and a damned hazardous one.) It has been shown that, in one case, the company was in violation of the US and State safety laws. If the Union was aware of these violations, and did nothing, then I feel they too should face whatever legal, and civil penalties as the law may allow. IC: A union's first responcibility is to its membership, and if it fails in that duty, it should be penalized. I also do not like the idea of a unionized military, even if it cannot go on strike. When you join the military, in exchange for the benefits given, one must give up some of their civilian rights, and freedoms for the greater good, and discipline. I look forward to the repeal of this legislation, if it passes.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

unions are the worst thing that can happen to a state with a high economy because while some workers will make the right choices and strike to gain fair wages as theirs are small others will take the mickey of the situation and strike due to the fact that want more money and the country will plummit into depression as you cannot say yes to one party and no to another for a dictator state this would be the end of their country as every one would rebel not because they are wrongfully treated but just because they think they deserve more money for less work i warn people who vote for this proposal to think carefully about the conciqeunces that might sucome to you.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

unions are the worst thing that can happen to a state with a high economy because while some workers will make the right choices and strike to gain fair wages as theirs are small others will take the mickey of the situation and strike due to the fact that want more money and the country will plummit into depression as you cannot say yes to one party and no to another for a dictator state this would be the end of their country as every one would rebel not because they are wrongfully treated but just because they think they deserve more money for less work i warn people who vote for this proposal to think carefully about the conciqeunces that might sucome to you.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Say hello to a little punctuation mark we call the period.

Say hello to a little punctuation mark we call the period.
Criticizing his grammar only only shows that you simply don't know how to show how he is wrong...

Criticizing his grammar only only shows that you simply don't know how to show how he is wrong...

Frankly, I couldn't be arsed to read that drivel.

As opposed to evil capitalist nations, which compute daily wage based on the colour of your underwear and hairstyle.


Errr...
1) If wages are high, it is because the country is rich, not because of economic system. Check RL data, please.
2) Excessively high wages damage the economy. This again is true in all economic systems.
3) Your desire to prevent strikes is called an authoritarian governement. Independently of economic system.


Congratulations. (By the way, most valuable currency earns you the Irrelevant Economic Goal of the Year award.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/VAS/0000-4234-4.jpg
Here ya go.)


I fail to see how such a benevolent social planner would have anything to fear from workers. Maybe they are happy because you decide so, and they secretly wish they would be rewarded on their merits? Maybe the disorder you mention is free expression of different political ideals? Dunno...


Good luck in the Great Gnomish Wars that ensue.
Xanthal is wealthy because of its economic system. Wages in the Socialist Republic are fair and inflation has remained on par with the international average for the past several decades. It is because of our economic system that strikes are dangerous; because market forces do not act to rebalance the supply and demand chain as efficiently as they do in capitalist economies. Our currency is valuable because our citizens have come to expect a quinault with high purchasing power and minimal long-term inflation. We do not fear workers, we fear for them; and we will protect their prosperity regardless of United Nations orders to the contrary. Fonzoland would be well advised not to criticise a system they obviously do not understand.

Criticizing his grammar only only shows that you simply don't know how to show how he is wrong...

Aside from the fact that Cluich opposes this resolution, when you go through 100 posts a day, you tend to want to skip over posts that are almost impossible to read.

But alas, you have given me a challenge so I must now act.

unions are the worst thing that can happen to a state with a high economy because while some workers will make the right choices and strike to gain fair wages as theirs are small others will take the mickey of the situation and strike due to the fact that want more money

1) End sentence. You need commas everywhere and I'd actually make that 2 different sentences - at least.
2) Let's see, the handful of unions that are problematic and self-serving are such a threat that they overrule the majority of unions that are good not to mention the threat of potential unionization keeps the majority of workers that keeps businesses from abusing their workers. Honestly, what utter crap.

and the country will plummit into depression as you cannot say yes to one party and no to another

Definite end to a sentence there

Interestingly, even the laissez-faire purists say there will be periods of depression for followers of their economic system. Therefore, this argument is invalid as over 200 years, there's only been one extensive depression and a handful of other, lesser ones. Not one was actually directly caused by unions and it seems that those nations who have legalized unions have done quite well. As in, they hold just about every top spot except #2 (which is held by a communist state with a GDP/capita about an eighth that held by the US citizen). Your argument fails

for a dictator state this would be the end of their country as every one would rebel not because they are wrongfully treated but just because they think they deserve more money for less work

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry, your arguments are making even less sense.

1) I'm not weeping over a popular revolution against a dictatorship
2) Why in the world would citizens try to overthrow a government if they think they deserve a raise from a COMPANY?
3) Actually, I'm losing too many brain cells to continue this train of thought

i warn people who vote for this proposal to think carefully about the conciqeunces that might sucome to you.

Already have. Helps too many people and does more good than half you guys pretend it does.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Such a wonderful way to end a horribly written post

Such a wonderful way to end a horribly written post

Judging by the post and the obvious brain damage being exhibited, he probably started it that way, too.

Dictatorships, like mine, usually have no company's. I have the government. The government provides jobs. It provides a delicate economy that would be shattered by the first fist full of lazy workers who decide to take the month off by striking. I can read. Learn to use common sense.

My economy has no "competition", there is one division of the government for each good or service. The people work for one division and get goods from every other division. We're working on a way to abolish money and just have the goods delivered directly to everyone.

Let's say this lazy fist full of workers belongs to the farming industry. Let's say there are five of them. That's enough to man one farmsworth of farm equipment. As the month long strike drags on, there's less food to be had. People go hungry. With this disbalance, someone will take advantage of it and begin a black market in food. Corruption and crime spread as the populace is forced to comply with this new criminal organizations demands. The farmers decide to go back to work: for the criminals who are providing them massive salaries at the expense of others. The government becomes a figurehead, the criminals run the nation. The government devolves into anarchy until a corporate police state forms.

Oh yes, my population will benefit vastly from the capability to strike.

Dictatorships, like mine, usually have no company's.

Actually, you'll find that most dictatorships do have companies. Centrally planned economies, such as your own (which can be dictatorships or democracies) have that sort of system

I have the government. The government provides jobs. It provides a delicate economy that would be shattered by the first fist full of lazy workers who decide to take the month off by striking. I can read. Learn to use common sense.

*sighs*

I have my doubts about whether this post will be using common sense.

My economy has no "competition", there is one division of the government for each good or service. The people work for one division and get goods from every other division. We're working on a way to abolish money and just have the goods delivered directly to everyone.

Congrats

Let's say this lazy fist full of workers belongs to the farming industry. Let's say there are five of them. That's enough to man one farmsworth of farm equipment. As the month long strike drags on, there's less food to be had. People go hungry. With this disbalance, someone will take advantage of it and begin a black market in food. Corruption and crime spread as the populace is forced to comply with this new criminal organizations demands. The farmers decide to go back to work: for the criminals who are providing them massive salaries at the expense of others. The government becomes a figurehead, the criminals run the nation. The government devolves into anarchy until a corporate police state forms.

Let's back up second.

Learn to use common sense

Let's say there are five of them. That's enough to man one farmsworth of farm equipment. ... People go hungry.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying FIVE people was able to take out your food stocks so completely that not only was there a noticable effect, but your government was so incapable of importing food, so incapable of implementing rations, and so incapable of transferring manpower that they collapsed your entire national economy?

Let's go back to this

Learn to use common sense

You will lose MUCH more in terms of food if a natural disaster hits, or even if it's a bad year, or a thousand other reasons. Yet, for some reason that I cannot, for the life of me, fathom, you're saying that 5 people have more destructive power than the forces of nature OR you're saying that you're doomed the next time a drought hits you.

I'm sorry, this argument lacks something.....

Oh right

common sense

Oh yes, my population will benefit vastly from the capability to strike.

Well, if the 5 people are capable of collapsing such a government, I think they will be better off with that collapse.

The Dominion of Anisochromia is not opposed in principle to unions or the rights thereof, but we ARE vehemently opposed to having our laws dictated to us by an outside body.

As for this particular amendment, it does not recognize the sovereignty of Anisochromia's laws and we will not have union recognition rammed down our throats by the UN. I cannot support an amendment, or an international body, that usurps the powers duly reserved to the government of Anisochromia.

As our previous message appears to have been effected by downsizing on the forums, we are putting it forward again.

Darsomir has never had any experience with unions. They aren't something that has ever developed, perhaps as a result of our not having had any real industrial revolution.

As such, we have no real understanding of the issue. As such, we are abstaining on this.

Johannes and Acolyte Gaebyn

OOC:
OK, as many of you know, I'm a RL public sector water quality engineer. This year I was *assigned* to give a presentation in Feb. in Monterey in front of hundreds. No big deal.

I was told exactly where I would stay and how long I'd be there. All this was approved by my management. I filled out every form I'm supposed to ... did everything by the book.

Last Friday my boss was contacted by a personnel officer in our department (1,000s of employees, hundreds of engineers) saying that I was not approved to *spend* the third night at the 4 day conference in which I presented one of the key parts of the Department's work regarding the recent California fish decline issues (which is covered weekly in most CA newspapers).

OK, I was essentially ordered down there and told what to do. I did it all. It had already happened.

When my boss told them that this matter was already settled in Feb. and that the conference was over and the money spent, my own Department started proceedures to cancel my direct deposit and then withdrawl $68 from my next paycheck! All without my consent! :(

Needless to say I am *not* thrilled.

At first my management suggested we simply find some sneaky way around this ... great ... they are frakking around with my paycheck and I only get promises that *sometime* they'll make it up to me.

Today I pointed out that as a union engineer that I'm pretty certain that when I'm *ordered* to perform a task and follow that task to the letter, that I'm entitled to my full benefits, including my full unmolested pay check. I also pointed out that I am considering contacting my union to contest this action. I honestly didn't want to play the union card, but when you are bent over by your management in response to some other group, you often have little recourse. :(

After I mentioned that, my management agreed to make this problem disappear. (We'll see.)



Unions are important. While they might not protect everybody, and like anything can be abusive, they also provide a valuable service ... they prevent large governments from walking over the people whom try to do their job.

This resolution isn't constraining the finer details in how unions can form, but it is basically making it easier for employees to collective bargin and enjoy collective / skilled legal protection from their employeers. Unions aren't inherently evil and do have some value. Knowing that many NationStates players are university students and therefore have not been placed in situtations where a union might seriously benefit them, I wanted to at least say that I personally appreciate mine. I have reservations about how it operates and that I'm required to be a member, but I *also* recognize it has some value to me as well.

Unions are important. While they might not protect everybody, and like anything can be abusive, they also provide a valuable service ... they prevent large governments from walking over the people whom try to do their job.They also do a whole lot of nothing because they're too busy intimidating people who want to leave or funneling union dues into the coffers of the DNC. I'm in a union, and it's a waste of time and money, but I don't have a choice in the matter. So much for my rights.

And I'm glad this Proposal allows the military to join unions. I giggle like a school girl every time I read that.

They also do a whole lot of nothing because they're too busy intimidating people who want to leave or funneling union dues into the coffers of the DNC. I'm in a union, and it's a waste of time and money, but I don't have a choice in the matter. So much for my rights.
Why not? And this is something that's a problem because of 'closed-shop' labour, in which case this proposal at least attempts to tackle that.

EDIT: But, yes, I agree a unionised military is stupid.

They also do a whole lot of nothing because they're too busy intimidating people who want to leave or funneling union dues into the coffers of the DNC. I'm in a union, and it's a waste of time and money, but I don't have a choice in the matter. So much for my rights.

And I'm glad this Proposal allows the military to join unions. I giggle like a school girl every time I read that.

OOC: By "leave" to you mean the union or your job? My union has no ability to force me to not quit my job. As for the union, it is extremely difficult, but there are theoretical ways for me to contest some union activities and get some of my monthly fees back. Though I've honestly never heard of anybody actually doing this.

FYI: I personally dislike closed shop unions, and I would IC support a resolution promoting open shop unions. :)

There was a proposition on our state-wide ballots recently to make unions more accountable and it failed. I can't recall right now if I voted for or against that issue, since California Republicans had a few real stinker propositions also on the Nov. 2005 ballot that really pissed me off.

Oh serene peers, too long have I remained silent. A thousand Austere Appologies.

First, may I appologise for voting against this resolution. The resolution is well worded and in the interest of the common good, but my citizens disagree. A resolution like this would open the door to union-ized lawyers and sorcerers. My economy could not bear such a burden, and as it is, the industries where unions are neccesary (Coal miners and Draconic manicurists to name a few) due to extreme safety concerns, already have unions. Unions seem to have sprung up naturally where they are needed, and my economy would crumble if every employee in Aesthyra suddenly had a tool for demanding wage increases (Especially in overpaid sectors, like middle management and neo-prunkery).

Also, dear comrades, I am abhorred at the idea of limiting the freedoms of the business class in Aesthyra by telling them who they can and cannot hire. If a unionized employee is such a great, productive worker, then employers will prefer to employ union members. Otherwise I am effectively taxing my business-owners to pay subsidies to my working class. Too far for my liberal population, my glamourous cohorts.

So do you want your ineducated workers running things, or a highly educated Bougiouse?

1) ill-educated or uneducated, not ineducated
2) Bourgeoisie not Bougiouse

Who looks ineducated now?

I voted for, because the vast bulk of anti-union arguments are either based on a total lack of understanding of economics, or cite isolated cases of union abuses. Naturally I don't condone union abuses, but on the whole unions are worthwhile organisations which represent and care about their members. I'll not condemn the vast majority of trade unions because one or two of them are bad, any more than I will condemn the vast majority of companies because some of them are bad.

Exactly. And if no lives are directly endangered, my nation cannot stop the strike. Garbage can pile up in the streets and rats proliferate. The sewage disposal system can grind to a halt. Small businesses go under because the truckers won't haul merchandise from the wholesalers. Struggling families lose what little savings they have because transportation workers go on strike and hourly wage-earners can't get to work. Non-fatal diseases are allowed to progress untreated because health workers stage a limited stoppage and refuse to treat any but life-threatening situations. Food becomes scarce in the city because long-haul truckers are on strike.

So tell me, why do you allow such a situation to happen? Are the workers in your nation not treated well?

Besides, a mess can be cleaned up, poor families can be supported, sick people can become healthy again.

So tell me, why do you allow such a situation to happen? Are the workers in your nation not treated well?
Are you not uncomfortable about giving them so much power to define 'well'?

Besides, a mess can be cleaned up, poor families can be supported, sick people can become healthy again.
Hahahahahahaha.

They also do a whole lot of nothing because they're too busy intimidating people who want to leave or funneling union dues into the coffers of the DNC. I'm in a union, and it's a waste of time and money, but I don't have a choice in the matter. So much for my rights.

This resolution doesn't say people have to be union members. If in your country the union system is screwed, don't blame it on unions, blame it on inadequate policies.

And I'm glad this Proposal allows the military to join unions. I giggle like a school girl every time I read that.

Note that millitary unions, as well as international federations to which some people here object were allowed by resolution #38 until it was repealed 2 months ago. There's little new about that.

Unions seem to have sprung up naturally where they are needed,

Then this doesn't really affect you, because it allows people to unionize. It does not force people to. If your unions are adequate, it's unlikely more will spring up.

Also, dear comrades, I am abhorred at the idea of limiting the freedoms of the business class in Aesthyra by telling them who they can and cannot hire. If a unionized employee is such a great, productive worker, then employers will prefer to employ union members.

They're still allowed to. Read the resolution. You're simply not allowed to discriminate in favour of or against union members; you are of course allowed to hire the best person for the job. If that's a union member, then a union member is hired. But not because (s)he's a union member, but because they are a good employee.

Are you not uncomfortable about giving them so much power to define 'well'?

No. Considering the power corporations and the government have, at least this resolution achieves more of a balance between powers.

OOC: By "leave" to you mean the union or your job? My union has no ability to force me to not quit my job. As for the union, it is extremely difficult, but there are theoretical ways for me to contest some union activities and get some of my monthly fees back.The union, obviously. And the problem with leaving the union, is that they're still allowed to extract the portion of their dues that are spent on collective bargining (since, in theory, you'll still benefit from that). Oddly enough, pretty much every union in existence manages to spend roughly 95% of the dues on collective bargining. Somehow that 5% covers benefits, union official salaries, various overhead, and millions of dollars of campaign contributions...

Note that millitary unions, as well as international federations to which some people here object were allowed by resolution #38 until it was repealed 2 months ago. There's little new about that.It did so because they're weren't granted an exemption; this one specifically mentions them. At any rate, the concept still makes me giggle.

You're doing it again. Stop assuming that wages will go up. They will only go up if someone is willing to pay the price. If nobody does, then there's no payrise.

This resolution does not say wages must go up. Read it!


OOC: Oh, for *[censored]*'s sake, will you PLEASE stop ignoring history?!?

When did unions ever strike for lower pay? ;)
When workers in an 'essential' role strike for higher pay, and can't easily be replaced, don't they usually get it eventually no matter how bad the effect on their employers' budgets, unless their strike actually drives their employers into a collapse? You seem to be assuming that there will automatically be a lot more goodwill & less greed on the part of all the unions, in all the nations, than I know some RL unions have ever shown...

Exactly. And if no lives are directly endangered, my nation cannot stop the strike. Garbage can pile up in the streets and rats proliferate. The sewage disposal system can grind to a halt. Small businesses go under because the truckers won't haul merchandise from the wholesalers. Struggling families lose what little savings they have because transportation workers go on strike and hourly wage-earners can't get to work. Non-fatal diseases are allowed to progress untreated because health workers stage a limited stoppage and refuse to treat any but life-threatening situations. Food becomes scarce in the city because long-haul truckers are on strike.

But all of that is just fine, according to this resolution. No lives are directly endangered, so who cares? The holy right to strike is preserved, and the health and welfare of the vast majority of the population that is not on strike is sacrificed on its altar.

We urge our colleagues to vote NO on this generally excellent but dangerously flawed resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


The government of St Edmund has found a major loophole in the proposal that lets us solve this problem, at least as far as our own nation is concerned... Because St Edmund requires a period of national service as part of the price for citizenship just about all of our native workers are technically reservists in the armed forces, so if workers in one of those fields were to go on strike we could simply recall them into military service and assign them to fill those same "temporarily vacant" positions... and as members of the armed forces, whilst recalled, they wouldn't legally be able either to go on strike or to refuse those orders... ;)

I always say a "Right to.." is a good start.

I always say a "Right to.." is a good start.
You'll





be



voting for my






"Right to Commit Genocide" proposal




then





I









assume?

When did unions ever strike for lower pay?

When was all unions ever did striking for higher pay?

When workers in an 'essential' role strike for higher pay, and can't easily be replaced, don't they usually get it eventually no matter how bad the effect on their employers' budgets, unless their strike actually drives their employers into a collapse?

Unions know that they shouldn't drive employers to bankruptcy, as they're hardly likely to profit from that. And if workers are so essential, they should be paid accordingly.

(compare how soon it would be annoying when garbage collectors go on strike, and when garbage company management goes on strike. Who deserves the better payment?)

You seem to be assuming that there will automatically be a lot more goodwill & less greed on the part of all the unions, in all the nations, than I know some RL unions have ever shown...

You seem to be assuming that there will be automatically alot less goodwill in all unions.

A union that overplays its hand and looses will not be one that will have a lot of members after that. It sorts itself out. If employers can't negotiate properly, that shouldn't be blamed on unions, but on bad management.

The government of St Edmund has found a major loophole in the proposal that lets us solve this problem, at least as far as our own nation is concerned... Because St Edmund requires a period of national service as part of the price for citizenship just about all of our native workers are technically reservists in the armed forces, so if workers in one of those fields were to go on strike we could simply recall them into military service and assign them to fill those same "temporarily vacant" positions... and as members of the armed forces, whilst recalled, they wouldn't legally be able either to go on strike or to refuse those orders... ;)

No, but you would have to provide independent arbitration.

So tell me, why do you allow such a situation to happen? Are the workers in your nation not treated well?

Besides, a mess can be cleaned up, poor families can be supported, sick people can become healthy again.

At present, we would not allow such a situation to happen. We would prohibit a strike which significantly endangered the health or welfare of our people and require both sides to submit to binding arbitration. But your resolution won't allow us to do that in the future.

And yes, our workers are treated well. And most of our unions are responsible organizations. But some aren't. In some, the membership and leadership would let people go hungry, families go bankrupt, and disease multiply for the sake of getting a $2 an hour raise for themselves.

Apparently, the honorable representative of Groot Gouda cares far more about catering to the wishes of union members than protecting the health and welfare of the general population. We don't.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: Oh, for *[censored]*'s sake, will you PLEASE stop ignoring history?!?

When did unions ever strike for lower pay? ;)
When workers in an 'essential' role strike for higher pay, and can't easily be replaced, don't they usually get it eventually no matter how bad the effect on their employers' budgets, unless their strike actually drives their employers into a collapse? You seem to be assuming that there will automatically be a lot more goodwill & less greed on the part of all the unions, in all the nations, than I know some RL unions have ever shown...

There's been more than a few instances where the Unions have agreed to lower wages, benefits, whatever. There have also been times where they've kept the wages to go up with inflation while they focused their efforts and strikes on various other issues.

EG:
-Safety
-Conditions
-Benefits

There's been more than a few instances where the Unions have agreed to lower wages, benefits, whatever.Well, yeah. Generally when whomever they're working for has one foot in bankruptcy court. And those are concessions.

When was the last time you saw picketers chanting:

"What do we want?"
"LESS MONEY!"
"When do we want it?"
"NOW!"

Well, I had this argument with our nice Mr Olembe in the coach on the way here from our region of Ankh-Morpork, so he probably knows what I'm going to say, but I'll say it again for those who were lucky enough to travel here some other way:

Where do your striking unionists live?

No, don't laugh, I'm not planning to send the heavies round to have a little word with them. It's a perfectly reasonable question, and I'm happy to answer it: your striking unionists are living in the same place as all the other citizens of your country. If it's the garbage men on strike, then their street is growing unwalkable because of the piles of rubbish, just like yours, and their kids are going to get just as sick as your kids are, and their food is being eaten by rats, too.

If a strike goes beyond what the public sees as fair or reasonable, the pressure they put on the unionists increases, their pressure on their leaders increases and something has to give. Maybe there are some union leaders hardened enough to stand out for their own gain, but if they do, they won't be leaders long. Union members are not as stupid as many powerful and well-educated people would like them to be.

The public's not that stupid, either. If they're convinced there's a good reason for a strike they'll put up with an enormous amount of personal discomfort, little old ladies will still go on taking fresh scones to the people on the picket and politicians will suddenly find themselves being told to 'pull those bastards into line' -- and they won't be talking about the unionists.

The thing is, if unions are allowed to exist (which is one of the rights this proposal protects) and if they're allowed to withdraw their labour (which is another), their industrial power can balance out the financial power of the employers. It's a situation any half-way decent politician should be able to exploit to the hilt: two sides to play off against each other.

In short, nations don't need the level of protection against strikes that some people here want to give them; if you manage things properly, the tension between unions and employers stays balanced, and if it doesn't, that's when it's time for individual governments to put a thumb on the scales.

Seems to me the proposal still allows for an awful lot of curb-the-unions thumb from governments. All the UN is asked to do through this proposal is make sure that there can be unions, and that they can act to keep their part of a genuine balance.
__________________________

Dame Andrea Fraser-Fairfax,
representing the Commonwealth of Lloegeyr.

In short, nations don't need the level of protection against strikes that some people here want to give them; if you manage things properly, the tension between unions and employers stays balancedHowever, if you manage things properly, you don't need unions at all. Ah-ha!

Xanthal is wealthy because of its economic system.

Yes, and that is the beauty of the RP world. In RL, it doesn't work that well.

Wages in the Socialist Republic are fair and inflation has remained on par with the international average for the past several decades.

Ditto. Can you present serious arguments, or do you intend to wank your way out of this?

It is because of our economic system that strikes are dangerous; because market forces do not act to rebalance the supply and demand chain as efficiently as they do in capitalist economies.

Funny. First you argue you are choosing perfect wages, and name it as a reason for your economic strength. Now we are back to an inefficient system, with mispriced production factors. I will assume you mean your vague and unverifiable qualification of "fair" means wages are above the social optimum (you know, the level that is selected automatically in competition). I could make a detailed economic argument explaining how that would lead to lower long term economic growth, due to lower capital creation and R&D. Trust me, I could; but it would be casting pearls before swine.

Our currency is valuable because our citizens have come to expect a quinault with high purchasing power and minimal long-term inflation.

The value of the currency means jackshit, it is an arbitrarily chosen unit. Do you become taller when you measure yourself in feet instead of metres? The strength of the currency is measured in variations, not in levels.

We do not fear workers, we fear for them; and we will protect their prosperity regardless of United Nations orders to the contrary.

As I said, that is not the sole domain of left or right wing; that is just authoritarian. You, my friend, argue that workers with rights will use those rights against their own interests. You, my friend, believe that you can decide whether every individual under your rule is happy with her/his work conditions, even without asking her/him. You, my friend, are a dictator; and a deeply deluded one at that.

Fonzoland would be well advised not to criticise a system they obviously do not understand.

Sigh. Whatever.

However, if you manage things properly, you don't need unions at all. Ah-ha!

Just because unions should strive to be useless doesn't been they are useless right now. If things aren't managed properly, unions are needed.

Ah-ha!

We've argued this matter with our distinguished colleagues and friends from Lloegeyr and Groot Gouda at some length, and it's time for us to stop beating the dead horse. They obviously put much more faith in the responsibility of all unions than we do. We think the history of organized labor clearly shows that, while most unions and their leadership will act very responsibly toward their memberships, their employers, and their communities, others will not. Very few people would ever commit murder, yet we have laws prohibiting it. Very few unions would act so irresponsibly as to allow strikes to endanger the health and wellbeing of their fellow citizens. This does not mean, though, that we should leave nations powerless to stop a strike which does.

Our thanks to the honorable Dame Andrea Fraser-Fairfax for giving our representatives a ride in her coach. The kielbasa sandwiches will be ready about noon.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well, yeah. Generally when whomever they're working for has one foot in bankruptcy court. And those are concessions.

When was the last time you saw picketers chanting:

"What do we want?"
"LESS MONEY!"
"When do we want it?"
"NOW!"

Bankruptcy....not necessarily

Deficits.....yes

So? If the company is churning a profit, why shouldn't they be asking for a share of the profits?

I say again, learn to use common sense, or perhaps even logic.

Five farmers work one farm. That farm takes up massive tracts of land, thousands of tons of food lost because of five farmers. I use state of the art technology to use few workers on massive pieces of land. That means that each and every worker must know his place in the system. If he wants to make a complaint, he can make one. If he wants to stop working, he gives two weeks notice in which time we find a replacement.

While that was a worst case scenario, people in certain careers, if allowed to spontaneously stop working, could cause an economic depression at least. There's a reason farmers are paid a lot (on average).

I say again, learn to use common sense, or perhaps even logic.

I thought I recognized your name

Five farmers work one farm. That farm takes up massive tracts of land, thousands of tons of food lost because of five farmers.

*sighs* You have yet to prove anything false with my previous statement. Define massive.

I use state of the art technology to use few workers on massive pieces of land.

Ooooo. "State of the art". So amazingly state of the art that you don't have to worry about natural disaster? Guess so, after all, 5 workers missing a month is more damaging to your economy than a drought that deals a death blow to the crops in 25% of your land.

*gasps*

Impressive. You'd almost wonder if this is accomplish through FTL technology that allows your tractors to start and stop quickly and all of a sudden, an entire acre is completely harvested. Or perhaps you have an irrigation system so complex that it pumps water out of the ocean, distills it, then runs it through the irrigation channels uphill so that you can ensure water for all your crops. Perhaps you have flood ditches to deal with the reverse problem.

I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.

That means that each and every worker must know his place in the system.

Yeah.

"You there. You are the farmer. When I crack my whip, you either clear that field out or you will receive 30 lashes"

"know his place"

Every time I read those three words, you get me in a happier and happier mood that this is being pushed upon you. To me, it reads as someone who has no respect for the worker, just the completed product. As such, I'd rather see them have this right so that you learn to develop a respect for them, or suffer the consequence of a strike.

If he wants to make a complaint, he can make one.

"And we'll lose it somewhere in our system.

If he wants to stop working, he gives two weeks notice in which time we find a replacement.

*wonders what would happen if a replacement couldn't be found - after all, if all 5 of them quit and couldn't be replaced, all hell would sure as heck break loose.

While that was a worst case scenario, people in certain careers, if allowed to spontaneously stop working, could cause an economic depression at least. There's a reason farmers are paid a lot (on average).

Worst case scenario?

Might be the worst scenario I've ever seen, but it sure as heck isn't a worst case scenario. Your government shows absolutely no creativity, no innovation, no attempts to look at alternates, and when some were suggested to you, you simply ignored them and said "This is a worst case scenario".

And so, we get back to this

I say again, learn to use common sense, or perhaps even logic.

You have shown an absolute failure with common sense insofar as you have failed to look at any alternative measures and have simply ignored rebuttle arguments. You didn't discuss ANY of the points brought up. You even went so far as tech-wanking

You have shown even less logic insofar as you refused to look at the alternatives, refused to try and come up with your own solutions, and somehow concluded that 5 people can do more damage than nature.

You have ignored equivelent data in reality. You have ignored the situation that exists in reality. You have ignored logic and common sense.

You, sir, have wanked.

When did unions ever strike for lower pay? ;)

Now as a matter of fact. At this very monent.

The 3,600-member Teamster's Local 1150 went on strike Feb. 20, rejecting a contract offer that would have raised wages 10.5 percent over three years, but also would have required members to pay 20 percent of health-care costs.

I recall hearing about a union offer for a smaller increase, and no signing bonus in return for not having the 20% health cost, but I can't find that on the web. The offer was flat out rejected by the company who considers the 20% health care non negotiable. They are currently shifting work off site and actively trying to break the union by having union members cross the lines.

[I disagree, and I'm going to insult you while I'm at it.]
The Socialist Republic is well aware of the compromises that must be made in long-term real growth to successfully carry out its economic policies. We accept that, and so do the people that elect the government of Xanthal. The value of currency, however, is not arbitrary in the domestic market; it is determined by how much currency per capita is available and how that currency is distributed. That is a simple fact of economics, one that capitalism and communism alike are unable to change without causing total collapse of the system. Economic authoritarianism does not mean civil or political authoritarianism, and that is a distinction you would be well-advised to make.

The NationStates multiverse is what it is. You might argue, we think incorrectly, that our system would not work in the "real world," but it is ultimately irrelevant. In the course of making fancy speeches to inflate your own ego and downplay the ligitimacy of our economic policies, you seem to have lost sight of our original assertion, which was simply that the institution of labor unions would threaten the integrity of the Xanthalian economy. You had best cast your pearls, for if you insist on resorting to slander you ultimately have no argument outside your own head. Now, shall we have an intelligent discussion, a flaming match, or end our dialogue now? It is your choice.

-Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Now as a matter of fact. At this very monent.

I recall hearing about a union offer for a smaller increase, and no signing bonus in return for not having the 20% health cost, but I can't find that on the web. The offer was flat out rejected by the company who considers the 20% health care non negotiable. They are currently shifting work off site and actively trying to break the union by having union members cross the lines.


OOC: Good grief! Lower pay, yes, although presumably not less money overall once that health cost is taken into account?

H'mm, aren't the facts that this thread has revealed about how unions work differently in just a few RL countries a strong hint that trying to apply a one-size-fits-all policy to the 30'000+ NSUN member-nations would be a serious mistake?

The union, obviously. And the problem with leaving the union, is that they're still allowed to extract the portion of their dues that are spent on collective bargining (since, in theory, you'll still benefit from that). Oddly enough, pretty much every union in existence manages to spend roughly 95% of the dues on collective bargining. Somehow that 5% covers benefits, union official salaries, various overhead, and millions of dollars of campaign contributions...


While I don't know how my union breaks down is budget (information that in theory I do have access to), I do think your numbers are probably fairly accurate.

And collective bargining has sort of lead to something of an adversarial (sp?) relationship between workers and management ... when proposed cuts to benefits are first introduced, they are overstated ... and when proposed increases are first introduced, they too are overstated. But I think that is the way markets tend to work. Sellers ask for high prices, buyers ask for low prices, and the two neogitate until they meet in the middle.

I suspect that our opinions on unions aren't *that* different.

IC:
The people of Mikitivity would like to restate that we share the opinion that Ambassador Lane of Groot Gouda offered to this assembly. Namely, abuses of unions and the exact nature of their organization is essentially a matter best dealt with at the domestic level. However, the fundamental right for people to be entitled to unionize is an important freedom.

In particular the reason it is important for this international body to recognize this right is not because this is a fundamental right, but because the nature of many international or multi-national corporations is that system of domestic laws regulating these industries becomes somewhat blurred ... and by having an international body such as the United Nations recognize the basic right to form labor unions, a clear signal is sent to these corporations. That signal is that the corporations should respect the right of their employees to unionize regardless of their citizenship.

Obviously the implementation of this right is still being left to individual nations (and hence the corporations and employeers) to decide, but the people of Mikitivity still are strongly in favour of this resolution.

I must admit, you're good at making a humorous point, even I laugh at your arguments, but your point is moot.

Your first point had something to do with nature doing less damage than a few striking workers. Indeed, it can do such damage, if, at this time, we ran into a drought, we'd be in a bad condition. Our economy would go down the tubes, making imports difficult.

One farmer does not man one tractor. "Farming", as you know it, is a manual labor job. That's not so in a world where the government funds the farm. Part of the cause of the near implosion of our economy was investing in several remote tractors. Don't laugh, it's true (and possible, using no more than an enhanced version of an RC cars basic technology). Therefore they merely sift through all the various programs and activate them. We're working on a program to put an end to this as well.

For now, at least, we can't afford a strike. Force, indeed, is sometimes necesarry, though we never resort to things as base as torture.

I must hearby morally object to any reference to sections dealing with the furthering of causes that renounce any plausible findings on the current subject.

The Socialist Republic is well aware of the compromises that must be made in long-term real growth to successfully carry out its economic policies. We accept that, and so do the people that elect the government of Xanthal. The value of currency, however, is not arbitrary in the domestic market; it is determined by how much currency per capita is available and how that currency is distributed. That is a simple fact of economics, one that capitalism and communism alike are unable to change without causing total collapse of the system. Economic authoritarianism does not mean civil or political authoritarianism, and that is a distinction you would be well-advised to make.

The NationStates multiverse is what it is. You might argue, we think incorrectly, that our system would not work in the "real world," but it is ultimately irrelevant. In the course of making fancy speeches to inflate your own ego and downplay the ligitimacy of our economic policies, you seem to have lost sight of our original assertion, which was simply that the institution of labor unions would threaten the integrity of the Xanthalian economy. You had best cast your pearls, for if you insist on resorting to slander you ultimately have no argument outside your own head. Now, shall we have an intelligent discussion, a flaming match, or end our dialogue now? It is your choice.

-Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

For Christ's sake... you either need to learn some proverbs, or to grow a thicker skin.


Do not cast your pearls before swine: Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. This proverb is adapted from a saying of Jesus from the Gospels, “Cast not pearls before swine.” Jesus appears to be warning his disciples to preach only before receptive audiences.

Now, if you would be kind enough to descend from your patronising pedestal, or your high horse, or wherever you stand to look down upon the illiterate crowd, maybe you can either:
a) Answer my arguments, instead of victimising yourself.
b) Have a debate about unions, rather than throwing beautiful statements about how brilliant communist autocracies are, which was the bulk of your initial statement.

Oh, and pray tell more about the "value" of currency, which now seems to have flipped into being money supply per capita, "and how it is distributed." It will amuse us.

although labor unions are beneficial, this resolution gives them way too much power. If you respect the well-being of your union, you will strike down this illogical proposal.

Rather than promote the formation of criminally controlled labor organizations, which ultimately end up serving an internal bureaucratic apparatus that would not exist otherwise, the member nations of the UN should seek to apply international labor and regulatory safeguards and protections that would protect all workers, union or otherwise, without creating a combative environment that pits labor against management.

We're wondering what actually is a criminal offence in Groot Gouda. Presumably murder is not, because the other person must have done something wrong.

I must admit, you're good at making a humorous point, even I laugh at your arguments, but your point is moot.

Excellent, we might be able to see eye-to-eye afterall.

Your first point had something to do with nature doing less damage than a few striking workers. Indeed, it can do such damage, if, at this time, we ran into a drought, we'd be in a bad condition. Our economy would go down the tubes, making imports difficult.

Your economy would go down the tubes? Let's look at what you originally said:

Let's say this lazy fist full of workers belongs to the farming industry. Let's say there are five of them. That's enough to man one farmsworth of farm equipment. As the month long strike drags on, there's less food to be had. People go hungry. With this disbalance, someone will take advantage of it and begin a black market in food. Corruption and crime spread as the populace is forced to comply with this new criminal organizations demands. The farmers decide to go back to work: for the criminals who are providing them massive salaries at the expense of others. The government becomes a figurehead, the criminals run the nation. The government devolves into anarchy until a corporate police state forms.

Your economy wouldn't go down the tubes. Your imports wouldn't be difficult to obtain. But the scenario you're standing behind, you're entire society would collapse in a manner of days.

I'm still hard pressed to believe that 5 men could do more damage than a natural disaster such as a drought.

One farmer does not man one tractor. "Farming", as you know it, is a manual labor job. That's not so in a world where the government funds the farm. Part of the cause of the near implosion of our economy was investing in several remote tractors. Don't laugh, it's true (and possible, using no more than an enhanced version of an RC cars basic technology).

OOC: I'd actually not touch RC cars and go straight to Cell phone tower style. Set up a few of them around the area, you can probably get a good enough range to control them. Especially if you've got the internal programming set up well enough. Problem with claiming RC is that the technology is so simplistic that you couldn't do much with it. You'd be able to stand on a post between 4 fields trying to control 4 tractors at BEST - and even then you'd probably have the odd glitch just because the range for those things was not meant for the breadth of a field. If your claim is merely you're quadrupling your manufacturing capabilities, you have a pretty bad argument still. However, you work from a central station where they've got a hundred tractors being controlled by remotes set up across the farm and have to program in routes, you might have a plausable argument....or that 5 people control ALL of your farms in which case.....well, I'll get to that later

Still doesn't argue "catastrophic failure" on the magnitude you indicate. You'd need to be able to control an entire region of food supplies and have absolutely no ability to get foreign aid to be in the drastic situation you suggested. Considering UN agencies that are in place and the fact that you indicate a poor economy, you may very well be worthy of help - especially if its a poor year.

Therefore they merely sift through all the various programs and activate them. We're working on a program to put an end to this as well.

Of course. However, my personal experience with the software industry (OOC: really) is that you will probably have more problems with that than you would when your guys going on strike for a month.

For now, at least, we can't afford a strike. Force, indeed, is sometimes necesarry, though we never resort to things as base as torture.


That's wonderful. However, let's go back to a recurring theme.

Learn to use common sense.

I say again, learn to use common sense, or perhaps even logic.

Sir, we have long left the realm of common sense or logic and gone into the realm of extreme cases. A nation which has put 5 people in charge of the entire food supply and no backup plan is not by ANY means something I would consider close to the normal case and I maintain that it is a measure of poor planning and a stupid system, not an argument against the formation of unions. I find your argument ludicrous and I ask you to use common sense when trying to tell us that your system is logical. It's not. It might be something you think works, but that doesn't mean it's good, it doesn't mean it's the best, and it sure as heck doesn't make a good argument against unions being a right guaranteed to your workers.

Very few people would ever commit murder, yet we have laws prohibiting it. Very few unions would act so irresponsibly as to allow strikes to endanger the health and wellbeing of their fellow citizens. This does not mean, though, that we should leave nations powerless to stop a strike which does.
<snip>

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Now, now, Patrick, you know very well that a law that prohibits murder (violent individual act) is a very different animal from a law that prohibits strikes (civil actions, non-violent -- unless individuals get heated, in which case they come under criminal law as individuals).

And when it comes to 'leaving nations powerless', a nation that can come up with such ... flexible ... debating tactics as yours is surely ingenious enough to come up with any number of acceptable ways to halt a dangerous strike. Rise to the challenge, laddie!
________________________________

Andrea Fraser-Fairfax,

Representative of the Commonwealth of Lloegeyr.

We're wondering what actually is a criminal offence in Groot Gouda. Presumably murder is not, because the other person must have done something wrong.

Whereas in your nation, murder would be considered an addition to the meat industry?

I thought you wanted to discuss the resolution...

Whereas in your nation, murder would be considered an addition to the meat industry?

I thought you wanted to discuss the resolution...
I do. You seem to be saying "unions endangering peoples lives should be allowed, because it's only a sign they're being treated badly anyway". Well, ok. Same for murder?

Labour Unions can be good. For instance, in real life lets take the airlines. Early on in the Airline industry, pilots had long tiring hours and they didn't get paid well for it. Labour Unions not only helped the pilots but did a favor for the passengers as well. After all, who wants to fly on a plane with a worn out captian. However now, with the Airlines in the gutter, these unions see this as a opportunity to get even more down time and better pay. What people need to realize though is that the Airlines management has a very hard job. There has never been a huge profit margin in the Airlines, and it is very difficult with all their costs to make a profit at all. So now these Unions are kicking them while they are down, without seeming to realize that if they succeed, the employees of these airlines may not have any jobs at all. They picked a bad time to stike.

Delegate Virdigria supports this.

I do. You seem to be saying "unions endangering peoples lives should be allowed, because it's only a sign they're being treated badly anyway". Well, ok. Same for murder?

Entirely different case. I think you can do better than a cheap shot at a comparison with murder.

Unions are not allowed to endanger people's lives. And if you want to get away with more, you can interpret 8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law a bit more broadly (within the limits of this resolution).

And, yes, you shouldn't let it come that far. Just as a government should not just punish people for murder or whatever crime, but should try to prevent them from happening.

Entirely different case. I think you can do better than a cheap shot at a comparison with murder.
It's not a different case. A murderer endangers someone's life; a striker endangers someone's life.

Unions are not allowed to endanger people's lives.
Thanks to this resolution, yes they are. You have already admitted in the course of this debate that, so long as the danger is only 'indirect', it is permitted.

And, yes, you shouldn't let it come that far. Just as a government should not just punish people for murder or whatever crime, but should try to prevent them from happening.
You don't think banning them is quite a good way of preventing them?

Unions are not allowed to endanger people's lives. And if you want to get away with more, you can interpret a bit more broadly (within the limits of this resolution).

Please, let's be accurate here. Strikes by unions are not permitted to directly endanger people's lives. The burden of proof that the endangerment is direct would rest on the government -- a very weighty burden and unrealistic, we think.

And, yes, you shouldn't let it come that far. Just as a government should not just punish people for murder or whatever crime, but should try to prevent them from happening.

Yet you will stop our governments from preventing the damage to the public health and welfare that a strike would cause? We can't prevent a strike; we can only try to clean up the mess after it makes it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Labour unions better allow the workers of a business or corporation to benefit from their labour, rather than have greedy business men take most of the profit for work he never did. Sure, the business man took the financial risk of creating the business or running the business, but it's the boss that needs the workers, the workers don't need the boss (co-op).

This is a very bad resolution.

The purpose is of the UN is not to regulate the economies of independent state, which indirectly, is what this resolution does.

This is a very bad resolution.

The purpose is of the UN is not to regulate the economies of independent state, which indirectly, is what this resolution does.
From what are you divining 'the purpose...of the UN'?

First, I didn't make my nation, I just inherited it ((OOC: No joke, it's based off of a game called Cantr, in which five people could very easily supply a quarter of a continent with the right equipment. My entire nation at the beginning was based off of this. It's a flawed system, yes, but I'm working on improving it. And I think I'll switch to the cell phone...thing. I don't care to recount it all). Second, wouldn't it be better to just make some national workers standards that every business within every nation must comply with? Easier, to be sure.

First, I didn't make my nation, I just inherited it ((OOC: No joke, it's based off of a game called Cantr, in which five people could very easily supply a quarter of a continent with the right equipment. My entire nation at the beginning was based off of this. It's a flawed system, yes, but I'm working on improving it. And I think I'll switch to the cell phone...thing. I don't care to recount it all). Second, wouldn't it be better to just make some national workers standards that every business within every nation must comply with? Easier, to be sure.

1) YOU came here complaining about a failure to use common sense. YOU came here saying that common sense and logic would show that 5 workers could collapse an entire nation. YOU came here complaining about how strikes can collapse entire nations. Whether it is your fault that your nation is the way it is is irrelevant. You came here trying to take a specific problem and make it as an argument of an average nation with a centrally planned economy. I can tell your nation has problems, and whether it's your fault or the fault of your predecessor(s) or the fault of a society that couldn't find its ass with a map, a GPS system, and a medical degree is irrelevant. If your argument is "this will make my fragile economy at risk of collapse" (which is what it should be), we can discuss possible solutions to it and ways that you could possibly protect your economy from such catastrophic failure (while you keep your no vote in place). Heck, you might even pick up a few pity votes. However, that wasn't your argument,. You came here complaining about common sense.

This isn't an issue of common sense, and that's why I gunned for your arguments alone.

2) With a 3500 character cap for proposals, a growing NatSov lobby, a decently strong capitalist lobby, disbelief in the concept of having too many regulations at the International level (generally speaking, the UN is supposed to say what while the nations say how), a lack of judiciary and minimalized executive branches, and a ever-present loophole problem.....no

The resolution The Right to Form Unions was passed 7,577 votes to 5,394, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Bwahahahaha!

Suckahs. :p

Bwahahahaha!

Suckahs. :p
We'll see. ;)

Thanks to all who supported it, and, well, good luck to those who opposed it.

Congratulations.

Thanks to all who supported it, and, well, good luck to those who opposed it.

Don't really need luck...

Is there no Hope for a free market Society!:headbang:

I'm so glad the right to Foam Lover Unions has passed. :p

So who wants to form the NSUN representative union?

Better wages! More benefits! Free Starbucks!
And if we don't get it we can go on STRIKE!