NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

Agreeing in principle with the idea that unions provide a degree of protection and empowerment for workers,

Regretting that UN Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", goes beyond ensuring basic protections of workers rights, however, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws:

1. It permits strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives, and that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well-being;

2. It enacts no minimum threshold for union membership nor prohibition on multiple membership, thereby allowing wildcat strikes;

3. It permits military personnel to form unions and engage in industrial action, and further to join international federations, representing a clear threat to national security;

4. It does not grant nations the right to modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action, so as to ensure continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption or even war;

5. It does not extend its requirements for minimum democratic standards to transnational union federations, leaving them open to corruption and misrepresentation of their members;

Given these problems, concludes that the resolution not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities, but further that it in no way guarantees fair representation of workers, and,

Noting that this repeal shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions, but merely empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,

Repeals UN Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions".

The original resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=148) is here. Although this has been submitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=unions), it's only for a trial run, so any comments on drafting would be appreciated.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff - which includes unions!"

I'd swap the last two lines.

Repeals "The Right to Form Unions" should be the last line, lest somebody accuse you of trying to add new law after the repeal.

Ok, that's reasonable.

Ellelt would be very much against this repeal unless it is a repeal to enable a replacement. Is that what you wish or just a repeal because you want to be able to exploit your workers?

Granted your agrument is finely crafted...and acurate, but sometimes its better to keep a bad law on the books unless someone is already planning to replace it just simply because of the protections it does allow for are needed.

If you are desireing to replace Res 149, I would be more than happy to help you in that area. But to leave nothing...I would have to campaign against this repeal.

I'm not planning a replacement. And if I were, it wouldn't be of any sort you'd like.

Not to reopen old wounds, but I will need to consider the impact of this proposed repeal in light of the IWF. In the synergistic effect would be to ban collective bargaining everywhere, then that would be a show-stopper.

In the synergistic effect would be to ban collective bargaining everywhere
A repeal cannot, by it's very nature, ban anything. Synergistic or otherwise.

In [if?] the synergistic effect would be to ban collective bargaining everywhere
It wouldn't.

A repeal cannot, by it's very nature, ban anything. Synergistic or otherwise.That may or may not be true.

Again, the wording of IWF strongly implied that individuals were free to negotiate the terms of their employment, even in the presence of collective bargaining agreements. What is unclear is whether, absent the right to form unions, the IWF might be read to imply that collective bargaining isn't permitted at all - IOW, that all labor negotiations must be one-on-one.

As I said, this needs to be researched, so I can't be certain of this.

Sigh.

I'll continue drafting this repeal on the Antarctic Oasis forums; if anyone who is not a member there has comments, they can TG me them. This thread is not going to be of any use.

Draft all you want...but that wont change the nature of repealing the right to form unions. Which by repealing would effectively end collective barganing. Why? Because it requires a labor union to perform collective barganing....if you dont believe me look up the word collective in any online dictionary.

collective. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collective

Is the one I used: here is the definition:

collective: Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-lek-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. formed by collection.
2. forming a whole; combined: the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries.
3. of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together: the collective wishes of the membership.
4. organized according to the principles of collectivism: a collective farm.
–noun 5. collective noun.
6. a collective body; aggregate.
7. a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.
8. a unit of organization or the organization in a collectivist system.

By taking into account the first and third definitions which are the ones that apply to labor unions and how they bargan with industrial management, we see that indeed Community Property was correct in its effect even if he was not as to the legislative cause.

The IPW (Res #175) protects the worker's rights to individual barganing...but lets say that workers would be better served by pooling their resources in a labor union organization...which is often the case with heavy and light industry. Repealing their right to form unions at all is a repeal of their right to collectively bargan.

Im sorry that you think that this tread isnt going to help you Gruenburg...but perhaps you should have considered that this proposal doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell of getting queued...much less passed. And especially not when you have nations like mine who stand opposed to anything which would take rights away from the working peoples of Nation States.

Hey, 1 to 4 are good things!

Wasn't one of the arguments to repeal 40HWW that we still have unions to prevent abuse and exploitation going too far? So what happened to that idea?

If I'm not wrong item 5 can be resolved legally by passing another resolution mandating unions to be democratic. You could make it social justice mild or furtherment of democracy.

Hey, 1 to 4 are good things!
They're really not. Though I would be interested to see your defence of them.

Wasn't one of the arguments to repeal 40HWW that we still have unions to prevent abuse and exploitation going too far? So what happened to that idea?
Oh well.

If I'm not wrong item 5 can be resolved legally by passing another resolution mandating unions to be democratic. You could make it social justice mild or furtherment of democracy.
No, that'd be an amendment as I see it. Anyway, it's easy to scrap the whole thing.

Wasn't one of the arguments to repeal 40HWW that we still have unions to prevent abuse and exploitation going too far? So what happened to that idea?


I do believe you are correct. Which means should the repeal pass, since we can not repeal a repeal, we certainly can point out things such as:

NOTING that the Right to Form Unions was used as a justification in the repeal of the 40 Hour Work Week on the grounds that labor unions would still be able to protect citizens from unfair work conditions,

REGRETTING that the Right to Form Unions was later repealed,

CONCERNED that ...

[insert text]

1. It permits strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives, and that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well-being;

2. It enacts no minimum threshold for union membership nor prohibition on multiple membership, thereby allowing wildcat strikes;

Makes unions more powerful. More worker protections, in case one power comprehensively shifts to their side. If they do go on strike in such a situation there really is something seriously wrong. in case two less so but still very powerful.

3. It permits military personnel to form unions and engage in industrial action, and further to join international federations, representing a clear threat to national security;

So they can refuse to fight a war. Less war. Though I doubt they'd be using that power very often, less war good. And if the government does such terrible things that the soldiers go on strike it deserves to fall.

4. It does not grant nations the right to modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action, so as to ensure continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption or even war;

So you'd better treat your emergency workers nice. Again, if they do go on strike in such a situation there really is something seriously wrong.

All of these put more power in the hands of the workers, who are the vast majority of the people, rather than employers. That is a far more democratic situation than the usual situation where employers have most of the power. I doubt that power would be used maliciously. In emergencies the workers generally will understand the situation and will cooperate. Power is generally imbalanced to the employers, and it's only fair to balance that with strong unions.

No, that'd be an amendment as I see it. Anyway, it's easy to scrap the whole thing.

It could stand on its own, so it wouldn't fit the idea of "amending" an existing resolution, just like passing more human rights resolutions isn't prevented by existing ones. I suppose it would be a mod ruling thing.

Makes unions more powerful. More worker protections, in case one power comprehensively shifts to their side. If they do go on strike in such a situation there really is something seriously wrong. in case two less so but still very powerful.
See, I actually agree with you. If people are striking and in doing so endangering public safety, and through that public life, then there is something very wrong.

So they can refuse to fight a war. Less war. Though I doubt they'd be using that power very often, less war good. And if the government does such terrible things that the soldiers go on strike it deserves to fall.
If the government does such terrible things that its military goes on strike it will face a coup. Pissing off the military is such an inherently bad idea that there is no need for unionisation. Furthermore, the idea that military personnel should be in international federations is frankly absurd.

So you'd better treat your emergency workers nice. Again, if they do go on strike in such a situation there really is something seriously wrong.
And again I agree. That they are able to do so is atrocious.

All of these put more power in the hands of the workers, who are the vast majority of the people, rather than employers. That is a far more democratic situation than the usual situation where employers have most of the power. I doubt that power would be used maliciously. In emergencies the workers generally will understand the situation and will cooperate. Power is generally imbalanced to the employers, and it's only fair to balance that with strong unions.
Ok, well if workers will understand the situation and cooperate, we don't need to worry about removing their right to not do so.

It could stand on its own, so it wouldn't fit the idea of "amending" an existing resolution, just like passing more human rights resolutions isn't prevented by existing ones. I suppose it would be a mod ruling thing.
Go write it, then.

As i said before, i would be all for this repeal if its intent was to enable passage for a replacement to the RtFU. However, that is not the intent, rather the intent is to remove rights from the working people which have been granted by a majority of the UN member states.

And i agree that the RtFU is a flawed law but it should be repealed to be replaced with a better one. Not repealed to leave nothing.

Labor and management are not equal in barganing on individual basis. Infact they never can be, because the worker has less resources than the employer...if they were equal they would be "partners" not "employer and employee". The main reason why unions are necessary is that the social class which is in power (that is has the economic and political control of the country) will exploit the class which is not in power. This is a phenominon that has been going on for centuries...and is unlikely to change.

However, the working peoples in this era by joining forces (that is creating unions) can as a whole demand better wages, working times and conditions. As individuals this is less likely to happen.

Lets look at an example of a world with unions (under the RtFU):

Captain-of-Industry X, owns a textiles plant and needs to have 100 workers to staff this plant at full capacity and maximum profit. So he hires the 100 workers at what ever wage he wants to...but that wage is below the poverty level for that country to extract even more profit than he would otherwise get from the textile mill. The workers tired of being exploited form a union and go on strike and demand a wage increase. Captain-of-Industry X has two opitons with the RtFU, he can give in to the union and give his workers a raise, or he can hire non-union workers for what ever he wants to pay them which is protected by the IWF. In otherwords the Capitalist and the Worker's both have rights.

Now lets look at an example a world where unions do not exist as a right of working people:

Captain-of-Industry X, owns a textiles mill and needs 100 workers still, and pays his workers whatever he wants to. This wage is still below the poverty line, but the workers lacking the ablity to collectivly bargan because the UN does not protect the right to form unions, and unions being necessary to collectivly bargan (See my Previous post) can not get any raise unless its for a little bit...at the discression of Captain-of-Industry X. So in this situation only the Capitalist has rights...that is unless you consider "the Freedom to Starve" a right.

As i said before, i would be all for this repeal if its intent was to enable passage for a replacement to the RtFU. However, that is not the intent, rather the intent is to remove rights from the working people which have been granted by a majority of the UN member states.

And i agree that the RtFU is a flawed law but it should be repealed to be replaced with a better one. Not repealed to leave nothing.
An astute observer would note that my intent is going to matter fuck all if a replacement is drafted anyway. That I will not write or support one myself is no obstacle to anyone else.

Labor and management are not equal in barganing on individual basis. Infact they never can be, because the worker has less resources than the employer
The worker has the most valuable resource of all: his labour. Without it, the employer can do about squat.

...if they were equal they would be "partners" not "employer and employee". The main reason why unions are necessary is that the social class which is in power (that is has the economic and political control of the country) will exploit the class which is not in power. This is a phenominon that has been going on for centuries...and is unlikely to change.
I don't count "receiving a wage in return for services" as exploitation.

However, the working peoples in this era by joining forces (that is creating unions) can as a whole demand better wages, working times and conditions. As individuals this is less likely to happen.
However, if they work harder as individuals, they will be rewarded with such benefits. Hence unionisation stifles the incentive to industry.

Captain-of-Industry X, owns a textiles plant and needs to have 100 workers to staff this plant at full capacity and maximum profit. So he hires the 100 workers at what ever wage he wants to...but that wage is below the poverty level for that country to extract even more profit than he would otherwise get from the textile mill. The workers tired of being exploited form a union and go on strike and demand a wage increase. Captain-of-Industry X has two opitons with the RtFU, he can give in to the union and give his workers a raise, or he can hire non-union workers for what ever he wants to pay them which is protected by the IWF. In otherwords the Capitalist and the Worker's both have rights.
Not true. He is prohibited from firing those striking employees (something I should maybe mention in the repeal...) and hence the "Capitalist"'s rights to property and free association are squashed. And no, bumming off work because you don't like the way they make the tea in the canteen isn't a "right".

Captain-of-Industry X, owns a textiles mill and needs 100 workers still, and pays his workers whatever he wants to. This wage is still below the poverty line, but the workers lacking the ablity to collectivly bargan because the UN does not protect the right to form unions, and unions being necessary to collectivly bargan (See my Previous post) can not get any raise unless its for a little bit...at the discression of Captain-of-Industry X. So in this situation only the Capitalist has rights...that is unless you consider "the Freedom to Starve" a right.
So they should find a different job, if they're not being paid well enough.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Having reviewed the original resolution, I actually don't see what the repeal is based on anymore because items 1, 3 and 4 are just not true. Emergency personnel and the military can be banned from going on strike

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;

The objections, then, are just to potential abuses of worker power but I feel it's something which is preferable to too much employer power. You can't get something for nothing, if you want to prevent exploitation and give more rights and power to the people you have to put up with some strikes.

If the government does such terrible things that its military goes on strike it will face a coup. Pissing off the military is such an inherently bad idea that there is no need for unionisation. Furthermore, the idea that military personnel should be in international federations is frankly absurd.

Well, it can't always be coup coup coup every time they get a pay cut or a cool fighter jet/tank/missile they really wanted to fly/crush people with/explode gets cancelled. And lots of countries have military exchanges, organise joint exercises, form alliances, etc. so it's not as if it's all fraternising with the enemy. And the idea of soldiers having global solidarity and refusing to kill each other when so ordered is fuzzier than a fuzzy rainbow-coloured can of fuzzy juice with gelatin hearts and CND symbols inside.

Having reviewed the original resolution, I actually don't see what the repeal is based on anymore because items 1, 3 and 4 are just not true.
Mrs Jiffjeff thanks you for accusing her of lying.

1. It permits strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives, and that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well-being;
Only strikes that "directly endanger the life of citizens" can be prohibited, so all of these sort of strikes would be allowed.

3. It permits military personnel to form unions and engage in industrial action, and further to join international federations, representing a clear threat to national security;
Military personnel are allowed to unionise (internationally) and engage in industrial actions - just not strike.

4. It does not grant nations the right to modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action, so as to ensure continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption or even war;
If they're not going to directly endanger citizens' lives, we can't touch them.

I assume the apology will be forthcoming swiftly.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

It seems that the Esteemed Representive from Greunburg has never read any of the works on socialism by many different writers.

The wage you speak of is but a small portion of the value created by the worker when he works....Where does profit come from after all? Does it just materialize from some sort of strange alchemy that makes value appear from nothing?

No it does not.

Profit is generated by the worker when he works...Indeed anything of value is a product of labor. One can be sitting right on top of a mountain of gold but that gold is meaningless unless someone (and that would be a worker) digs it out of the ground.

Since there is a profit in capitalist bussinesses, someone is getting the shaft. It isnt the Capitalist, I can tell you that. And where does this capital that the capitalist has come from anyway. Once again labor. Capital is the concentration of labor into a form, be it gold, currency, or stocks. All that money (which are peices of paper that say they have value) represent something...Labor.

From Labor everything is made, and Upon Labor everything is valued more or less. Use-value comes into effect in that argument but i havent the time nor space to devote to a disortation on socialist principles. For these principles are much more complex than im trying to make it seem in this one post.

The point is that Communist Nations like myself really dont need unions...although we already have them...written directly in the constitution in Ellelt's case. Our most local form of government is the Soviet (Worker's Council) which runs each separate economic enterprise in the intrests of the workers that work there.

The Protections of the RtFU are there for workers in those nations who do not have have a socialist Economy. As a Socialist, As an Elleltian, and As a member of the UN I cannot and will not sit asside and watch worker's rights be erroded.

As for the Replacement, I do not feel that it would be out of line to have one on the table before discussing the repeal of the current RtFU. So your points are at best moot.

What you're saying doesn't add up. A diamond is valuable not because of the labour invested in its production, but because of its worth to those who would buy it. So a diamond that I happen to find down the back of my sofa has the same value as one ten miners drill out of a rockface: the labour invested in its production has no outcome on its end value.

First off, I had no idea you lived in a diamond mine. And everyting I said makes perfect sense to anyone who has half a brain. Produced items do not come into being by chance...never will, never have. Use some common sense...i know that you have some, deep deep down inside of you.

If you find a diamond in your couch, it was probably lost there by someone, and it was mined out of the earth by someone. The person who did the mining of the diamond would be the worker.

When it comes to value, they would have the same amount of value because it required just as much work to extract the diamond from the earth that you found in your couch...which for some reason i find an impobable senario...as it does to get one from a rock face in say Askanzkov Mine in Northern Ellelt.

A diamond that is still in the earth has no value what so ever. Because it does not exist yet...and wont until someone digs it out of the ground....and who do you think will do the digging? If you guessed the worker, you would be right...any other answer....anght too bad you dont win the 64,000 ruble question.

Mrs Jiffjeff thanks you for accusing her of lying.

"Not true" as in "not correct".

Only strikes that "directly endanger the life of citizens" can be prohibited, so all of these sort of strikes would be allowed.

Ambulance drivers being on strike seems pretty direct to me. Firefighters on strike and not putting out a fire is quite direct. In providing the example "such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;" it shows the proper interpretation of what should be considered "direct" and your interpretation is thus incorrect and so is the argument for repeal.

I assume the apology will be forthcoming swiftly.

I'm not going to apologise for defending human rights against cynical attempts to destroy them.

I applaud the Honorable Representive of Kelssek!

Indeed the more that this debate goes on the more convinced I am that the RtFU is not flawed at all. I am grateful to the Honorable Representive of Kelssek for his enlightening posts, as i had not immediately grasped the full impart of the language in the RtFU. The Repeal would be a disaster for the working peoples of Nation States.

First off, I had no idea you lived in a diamond mine. And everyting I said makes perfect sense to anyone who has half a brain. Produced items do not come into being by chance...never will, never have. Use some common sense...i know that you have some, deep deep down inside of you.
Wow, insulting my intelligence is definitely going to get me to agree with you!

If you find a diamond in your couch, it was probably lost there by someone, and it was mined out of the earth by someone. The person who did the mining of the diamond would be the worker.

When it comes to value, they would have the same amount of value because it requires just as much work to extract the diamond from the earth that you found in your couch...which for some reason i find an impobable senario...as it does to get one from a rock face in say Askanzkov Mine in Northern Ellelt.

A diamond that is still in the earth has no value what so ever. Because it does not exist yet...and wont until someone digs it out of the ground....and who do you think will do the digging? If you guessed the worker, you would be right...any other answer....anght too bad you dont win the 64,000 ruble question.
Do you accept that two products of equal value can be derived through means of differing intensity of labour, though? I have had a fish literally jump out of the water and land in my boat; I have spent hours tugging on a line for a fish. The means by which it arrived in my boat would be irrelevant to the price I received for it at market.

Ambulance drivers being on strike seems pretty direct to me. Firefighters on strike and not putting out a fire is quite direct. In providing the example "such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;" it shows the proper interpretation of what should be considered "direct" and your interpretation is thus incorrect and so is the argument for repeal.
Again, you are talking about strikes: the clause you are referring to mentions only industrial action, and Resolution #149 makes no allowance whatsoever for restricting that in time of need.

I'm not going to apologise for defending human rights against cynical attempts to destroy them.
Ok, but are you going to apologise for falsely accusing someone of lying?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Your example was irrelevent. Of course differing intensities of labor exist, and i said that value was determined only partly on labor.

Enter the Use-Value. which is the second part of how value is determined. Your diamond can be used for jewlary or for making a cutting tool etc. Your fish can be eaten, stuffed to make a decoration. That is the second part of determining value, Indeed if Produced goods did not have a use why would anyone make them?

Simple answer: They wouldnt.

However those things that require more labor generally cost more. And market values rely on avarage amount of labor to estimate the value of the labor put into obtaining a finished product.

For example my taylor in New Stalingrad, Comrade Yeltshinko, is a very skilled taylor...he can make me a new uniform in 3 hours. His son, Comrade Yeltshinko Jr. is not as skilled and it requires him 6 hours to make me a new uniform. However, the price remains the same because the use value is the same, although Comrade Yeltshinko generally makes more money because of his greater skill--and being chairman of the New Stalingrad Taylor's Soviet helps a bit too.

As for winning you to my side...that is not my intent at all. I highly doubt you will ever come to see things eye to eye with me on these things because your ideology is vastly different than my own. I was however pointing out that your own ideas are not based on any form of study of economics what-so-ever, not even the capitalist one. Which I have studied in detail, being a senior member of the Elleltian Party, a member of the Politburo of that Party, and for many years a Communist Party of Ellelt member...even going back to the time before our Glorious Revolution when we handed the crowned head that had enslaved us for centuries his head.

I did not accuse my honourable colleague of lying. I said her assertions were untrue, not that she had intended to mislead the United Nations. I do apologise if offence was caused by my statement.

As to the matter of industrial action, the existing resolution can be interpreted to prevent actions which directly endanger life. As I have pointed out the interpretation of "direct" is already made much looser by the example the resolution provides. I feel it is more than sufficient to provide for the prevention of union action by such public workers which may compromise essential services.

Eric Lattener
- Ambassador to the UN

Your example was irrelevent. Of course differing intensities of labor exist, and i said that value was determined only partly on labor.
Ah, so when you said "Upon Labor everything is valued", you mean "not everything is valued upon labour". Gotcha.

Enter the Use-Value. which is the second part of how value is determined. Your diamond can be used for jewlary or for making a cutting tool etc. Your fish can be eaten, stuffed to make a decoration. That is the second part of determining value, Indeed if Produced goods did not have a use why would anyone make them?
Quite. What that doesn't explain is where labour plays any in determining the value whatsoever.

Anyway, you want to discuss LTV, or suck your own dick about how clever you are, great. Not relevant to this thread. So, if you don't have any comments on improving the repeal draft, piss off.

I did not accuse my honourable colleague of lying. I said her assertions were untrue, not that she had intended to mislead the United Nations. I do apologise if offence was caused by my statement.
Thank you.

As to the matter of industrial action, the existing resolution can be interpreted to prevent actions which directly endanger life. As I have pointed out the interpretation of "direct" is already made much looser by the example the resolution provides. I feel it is more than sufficient to provide for the prevention of union action by such public workers which may compromise essential services.
I'll just repeat myself: "you are talking about strikes: the clause you are referring to mentions only industrial action, and Resolution #149 makes no allowance whatsoever for restricting that in time of need."

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Actually I do have a way to improve the draft...Withdraw it.

Calm down.

I would suggest to the representative of Gruenberg that the resolution only grants the right to strike and theoretically their nation would be allowed to prevent any industrial action short of a strike.

As to the right of labour to just compensation for the value created, you have acknowledged that without labour the capital owner can't do anything. Production takes place only because of labour and it is only just that workers receive just reward for it, rather than most of it being absorbed as profit as is usually the case in capitalist economies. Windfalls such as you described, or differences in productivity, are irrelevant to this basic idea; obviously more productive workers will create more value and are hence entitled to more pay.

However in the end there is still a basic right of people to unionise and act to defend their interests. The idea of value derived from labour is just one way of explaining why many nations, including Kelssek, believe they deserve such rights besides the belief in the inherent existence of such a basic right.

- Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

Doctor Leary stumbled into the debating hall, trying frantically to fix his skewed tie. "What is it now?" He muttered to himself as he looked over the draft. "The Hack supports this. Furthermore, we fully support any nation that wishes to draft legislation to completely ban unions. Blood sucking leeches. Right then. Rono... when are you filing this bad boy?"

1. It permits strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives, and that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well-being;


I don't see how this works. (OOC: But maybe you do, I'm not really knowledgeable about this topic.) But nowhere in the resolution does it state the workers have the right to do those things. Workers have the right to strike. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have the right to strike in a way that endangers lives. Furthermore, clause 8 states that unions must follow national law. So how are they going to do any of those things under the rights given in the resolution?

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

Workers have the right to strike. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have the right to strike in a way that endangers lives. Furthermore, clause 8 states that unions must follow national law. So how are they going to do any of those things under the rights given in the resolution?ooc: Ever lived someplace where the garbage collectors were on strike? After a month or so, all that stockpiled garbage isn't exactly healthy. And it attracts critters with a high propensity for carrying disease.

Like raccoons. Filthy disease-bags.

Ahhh...

The thing is according to the according to the RtFU, Article 8 have to conform to the national laws of the member states. So in essence that problem is a moot point. The Nations have National Sovereignty...Let them use it.

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.

If that were the Issue the nation could simply write a law forbiding strikig workers from using violence to keep non-union replacement workers from crossing the picket line during a strike. (And incidently the hireing of replacement workers--union or not--is permitted under the IWF.)

The issue here is not about the RtFU, causing problems...its that as international law it exists. In otherwords those nations that are UN members who wish to ban labor unions altogether cannot do so without repealing the RtFU.

As for the Example given by Hack, that has already been covered by Article 3 of the RtFU:

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 endager the life of the citzens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

This means that a nation can stop garbage collectors from striking by National Legislation. Once again the RtFU provides for National Sovereignty...Let the Nations use it.

This quite simply is not a resolution about problems caused by the RtFU, rather it is an attempt at international union busting.

And as strange as it may sound to some people I Support fully both the RtFU and the IWF. This repeal is simply not necessary.

the workers lacking the ablity to collectivly bargan because the UN does not protect the right to form unions
Sorry, your entire logic fails the national sovereignty test here. Absolutely nothing prevents your nation from having its own labor laws, as long as they don't conflict with UN laws. If this is repealed, you're welcome to Stick It To The Man as much as you want ... inside your borders.

In the meantime, those of us Capitalizts who aren't UN members can exploit to our greedy little heart's content, so it's not like you're having some sort of Universal Barrel of Human Rights effect. We'll continue to underprice and out-produce you with no legal repercussions whatsoever. We also understand the motivating power of bread and circuses, and consequently our population is quite happy with how our Corporate Managers run things.

MJ Donovan,
CEO Emeritus,
Frisbeeterian Corporate States
"Not a UN member since 2004!"

It was my understanding that UN legislation did not effect non-UN states. And before you ask I'm neither IntFed or NatSov either. I like to have balance. In this case the International Federation test is passed by the UN having the right to mandate that citizens of UN nations have the right to form unions, regardless of whether they do so or not. The National Sovereignty test is passed by allowing the UN nations to regulate those unions within their boarders how they see fit, within reason.

With the RtFU and IWF together its a win, win with for everyone in the UN. As for Non-UN states, well they of course can do what they wish...they are not under the jurisdiction of the NSUN.

As for sticking it to the man In the United Socialist States of Ellelt the workers are "the man". The government of my nation is a Union of provinces which are further subdivided to the lowest level the Soviet, which is a council made up of workers from each collective farm, factory, hopital, etc. So then...Who would they be sticking it too? Themselves?

As for In the United Socialist States of Ellelt the workers are "the man".
Obviously, and in context, "The Man" referred to the Evil Capitalist Overlords that you seem hell-bent on protecting against. However, it's clear from your discussion of this proposal that 'obvious' is anything but to you. Since you seem to take such delight in being obtuse about virtually everyone's objections, we've decided that we've wasted enough time on this pointlessness. We'll make a note that your vote is "against".

Good day, and goodbye.

MJ Donovan,
CEO Emeritus,
Frisbeeterian Corporate States
"Not a UN member since 2004!"

We must congratulate the delegation from Gruenberg, as always, for a very craftily written proposal. Which we (not surprisingly) oppose.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

ooc: Ever lived someplace where the garbage collectors were on strike? After a month or so, all that stockpiled garbage isn't exactly healthy. And it attracts critters with a high propensity for carrying disease.

The problem then isn't that they can strike, it's because of a failure to get a settlement. You might as well blame the Universal Bill of Rights for crime because of all its protections of thieveing dirtbags to be innocent until proven guilty and to have a meddlesome defence lawyer and you can't torture them into confessing.

In a situation like that there's all the more urgency to get a settlement done. Power tilts to the working people, i.e. 99% of the population, as it should. And you usually have mandatory arbitration coming in when a strike or lockout goes on too long, anyway.

And you usually have mandatory arbitration coming in when a strike or lockout goes on too long, anyway.And guess what? That doesn't always work. I'm sorry to inject the harsh reality of the real world into your socialist dreams, but sometimes strikes hurt the majority of people. And when it's a quibble over paying 5% of insurance costs versus paying 0% of insurance costs, I don't have much sympathy. Especially when I pay 50% of my insurance costs.

And when it comes to garbage collection, any duration is "too long".

And the harsh reality of the real world is also that people tend to get screwed if they don't have collective protection. Why do you think Wal-Mart fights so hard against their workers unionising?

Without strikes and unions we wouldn't have a weekend and working conditions most likely wouldn't have improved much since the Industrial Revolution. Of course, nowadays it's pensions or layoffs, not to say those aren't important, but if you honestly don't care or even sympathise how other people fare then divide-and-rule has worked.

And a public health issue to the point where lives are endangered falls within the scope of the exceptions of the resolution, by the way, if you care to interpret it. Hell, a lot can be interpreted from "Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;".

Without strikes and unions we wouldn't have a weekend and working conditions most likely wouldn't have improved much since the Industrial Revolution. Of course, nowadays it's pensions or layoffs, not to say those aren't important, but if you honestly don't care or even sympathise how other people fare then divide-and-rule has worked.


Ambassador Zyryanov stands and claps.

"It's so rare to hear a comment in the GA which is intelligent, compassionate and to the point that it was worth applause."

I thank the honourable representative from Ariddia for his kind words. Tonight when the strange woman calls to ask if I'm lonely I can confidently tell her no.

- Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

With no knowledge of what other factors are in play it is not possible to draw a conclusion from one anecdotal example. Overall, statistics show the opposite is generally true.

The nation of Complex-Reality stands firm in it's opposition to this repeal and joins the fine nation of Ariddia in the support of the statment by highly regarded delagate from Kelssek.

Niar Eci
Ambassador from
Complex-Reality

<Ambassador McGee rises and emits a bloodcurdling scream, and then pauses to clear throat as delegates struggle to get past ringing ears>

(OOC: Better than banging one's clogs on the table.)

We're not here to engage in a debate between the ignorant and the uncaring over the Labor Theory of Value; besides, we'd thought that reactionary b_tch ... er, polemicist Ayn Rand had pretty much resolved the whole question by pointing out that entrepreneurial labor - the labor involved in assembling productive resources and bringing goods from production to market - counts right along with traditional labor.

All of which has as much to do with socialist egalitarianism as lactation has to do with nipples on a male swine - and has even less to do with this debate.

The issue is that the proposed resolution will weaken the position of trade guilds and labor unions, which will weaken the negotiating position of workers; some of us don't like that, and some of us do; some of us wonder if our own collective bargaining rights will be diminished by such a repeal, while others say yes and still others say no.

If we take a strict NatSov attitude, the question here is whether the repeal restricts the ability of countries that want unions to have them; if we take an IntFed position, then we have a thornier public policy issue before us.

For our part, we suggest that the latter issue, if we take it up, should proceed from a balance of interests point of view; unless we are prepared to look into limiting oligopolies and monopolies, or resolving wage-fixing collusion by businesses, we should probably simply resolve to affirm some kind of right to unionize. Permitting unions is considerably easier than instituting what amounts to antitrust policy for labor markets.

If we take a strict NatSov attitude, the question here is whether the repeal restricts the ability of countries that want unions to have them;
It doesn't. It, in fact, can't.

And, as a sovereigntist, I won't support a proposal to completely ban unions.

Partially on the politics of democracy, I am against this. I am amazed that a communist country would support unions, most do not, for the reasons generally given on this list. Capitalist countries are more likely to support unions, unions are fundamentally about the right to get more money and benefits in capitalist society. In communist or repressive societies they have the serious ability to bring down governments. If the government is so corrupt that it cannot pay its military, emergency services, or essential service workers it should get what the country deserves a new government. It would be amazing situation when military personnel have to form unions to get paid. If this happened you would have a coup on your hands.

Collective bargaining is not limited to unions. There are some forms of incorporation which have collective bargaining built into them partially or fully employee owned corporations, cooperatives, farmers cooperatives, and syndicates-- union owned enterprises. Employee ownership is by nature collective, so are cooperatives. Partnerships also have a form of collective ownership by the senior partners. Employee owned operations in many cases are more efficient than union/ managment split enterprises. The problem with eliminating collective bargaining is it should only be applied to unions, there are other forms of collective bargaining. There is the nascent idea of direct competitive ownership by workers or worker capitalism.

Der Fuhrer of the Reich wishes to express his belief that unions are not neccessary for fair working conditions.

Unions are only good until the government legislates the minimums for which Unions are meant, such as minimum wages, fair working hours, etc.

Once that happens, Unions are only a hindrance to the economy. Consider, for example, the umpire union of the United States. They already had like 3 months a year in vacation, only worked like 3 months of the year, and still wanted more.

Also, Der Fuhrer expresses his disgust that the principals upon which the original proposal were made undermines the property rights of individual business owners.

Der Fuhrer wants to express his ideal that Corporatism is, in fact, the best way to go, and that Unions are a thing of the past.

Further, Der Fuhrer expresses his intent to thoroughly oppress union members and leaders in his own sovereign state...and as we speak many of them are probably already being shot.

In the Reich, child labour is already illegal. Get offa me.

Emmissary of Der Fuhrer,
Seigmund Van Heilsing.

*stands up and applauds with his collegues*

The Ambassador from Kelssek is a credit to his nation and a champion of the International Working Peoples!

As for statements reguarding communist governments not supporting unions that depends on both their internal and external politics. Ellelt, supports the right to form unions...even as it doesnt need them as all industry is run by a Soviet (worker's council) System. However, Our Proletarian Brothers in capitalist nations require unions to wrest from the bourgeoise fair wages, and humane working conditions. We out-of-hand will oppose any repeal of the right to form unions internationally.

And as I, the Elleltian Ambassador, have said repeatedly with the Right to Form Unions Resolution, and The Individual Working Freedoms resolution inplace both the desires of International Federalists and National Sovereignists are met.

This repeal is nothing more than a covert attempt at international union busting as, the author of this repeal has stated publicly that he would not write, nor support a replacement for the RtFU.

*stands up and applauds with his collegues*

The Ambassador from Kelssek is a credit to his nation and a champion of the International Working Peoples!

Please, regale us with more of your rhetorical fluffy claptrap. I'm sure we'd rather hear that than actual debate.

As for statements reguarding communist governments not supporting unions that depends on both their internal and external politics. Ellelt, supports the right to form unions...even as it doesnt need them as all industry is run by a Soviet (worker's council) System.

So what your saying is that you'd have your cake and eat it too? Your assertion is contradictoryl; you assert that it is acceptable for some communist nations to have unions, and equally acceptable for others to have no unions. Why then is it evil for non-communist nations to have no unions?

However, Our Proletarian Brothers in capitalist nations require unions to wrest from the bourgeoise fair wages, and humane working conditions. We out-of-hand will oppose any repeal of the right to form unions internationally.

Ah, there we go. Your hypocrisy shines through: "It's okay for communist nations to have no unions, because we're perfect, but anyone who isn't communist is automatically going to exploit the people."

Absolute bullshit. In Allech-Atreus, workers have the right to refuse to work for their wages. Mass quittings are a common thing when businessess work too hard for too little wage. We don't have any of the problems you elucidate above; in fact, we have just scored a victory for the regular people, reducing the income tax rate for all workers to the lowest it's been in years. Your stereotypical concept of non-communist nations is extremely flawed.


This repeal is nothing more than a covert attempt at international union busting as, the author of this repeal has stated publicly that he would not write, nor support a replacement for the RtFU.

Wrong. The UN cannot bust unions unless legislation is passed that outlaws Unions, which won't happen even if this is repealed. Your baseless, uninformed communist rantings aren't welcome here, and neither is your hypocrisy.

And a public health issue to the point where lives are endangered falls within the scope of the exceptions of the resolution, by the way, if you care to interpret it. Hell, a lot can be interpreted from "Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;".

Garbage not being collected does not constitute a health risk. Allowing garbage to pile up for 3 months does constitute a health risk. The garbage men going on strike does not directly constitute a health risk. Them not going back to work for a few months does. Them going on strike does not fall under the exceptions granted by RtFU.

On a further National Sovereignty point, for those who wish to protect trade or labour unions, simply do so. The Repeal of RtFU cannot stop you from allowing your people to have unions. Nor can the Repeal force anything else upon you. Or anyone else.

I approve of the arguments and the concept of this repeal, and will support it once it comes to vote.

It pleases the Elleltian Ambassdor to anounce to the G.A. that he has recived a telegram from The President of the Council of Ministers of Ellelt that the Elleltian People's Liberation Army has developed IGNORE artillary and rocketry.

And Further notes that ad hominum attacks are the last resort of those lacking any argument.:D

It pleases the Elleltian Ambassdor to anounce to the G.A. that he has recived a telegram from The President of the Council of Ministers of Ellelt that the Elleltian People's Liberation Army has developed IGNORE artillary and rocketry.

And that has anything to do with Repeal RtFU how, exactly?

And Further notes that ad hominum attacks are the last resort of those lacking any argument.:D

Both sides of this debate have been making argumentum ad hominem attacks, so please climb down off of the tall steed. There is little to be gained by claiming moral superiority under these circumstances.

It pleases the Elleltian Ambassdor to anounce to the G.A. that he has recived a telegram from The President of the Council of Ministers of Ellelt that the Elleltian People's Liberation Army has developed IGNORE artillary and rocketry.

And Further notes that ad hominum attacks are the last resort of those lacking any argument.:D

It please me to announce to Mr. Khernyko, if his head is currently out of his ass, that the Empire no longer wishes to listen to his idiotic ramblings and refusal to debate properly.

I also appreciate the ambassador's irony in complaining about those delegates lacking any argument. Very amusing.


We concur with the representative from Kivisto, in that refusal to collect garbage constitutes a serious health risk, regardless of the benefit that striking may give the stiking garbage collectors. The public health and safety ALWAYS trumps the right to strike, in any and all cases.

And Further notes that ad hominum attacks are the last resort of those lacking any argument.

Your Council of Ministers' first resort appears to be using the aforementioned IGNORE rockets against legitimate rebuttals, and getting their morning exercise jumping to conclusions. We're not impressed.

MJ Donovan,
CEO Emeritus,
Frisbeeterian Corporate States

Wrong. The UN cannot bust unions unless legislation is passed that outlaws Unions, which won't happen even if this is repealed

I think what he is afraid of is not the UN, but member nations doing so. And it's a perfectly valid concern. That is why the UN has generally seen fit to impose human rights resolutions such as this one upon the sovereignty of its members. Outlawing unions or their right to strike is no more a sovereign right of a nation than torturing their citizens is. And if outlawing unions is okay, what's next? Non-governmental organisations? Political parties?

The garbage men going on strike does not directly constitute a health risk. Them not going back to work for a few months does. Them going on strike does not fall under the exceptions granted by RtFU.

But, according to your own reasoning, them being on strike long enough that there is a direct health risk should be covered by the exception. And if you really wanted to get lawyery about it you could also say it only covers the right to go on strike, not to remain on strike and RP your national courts accepting this reasoning. You'd still be in compliance.

I think what he is afraid of is not the UN, but member nations doing so. And it's a perfectly valid concern. That is why the UN has generally seen fit to impose human rights resolutions such as this one upon the sovereignty of its members. Outlawing unions or their right to strike is no more a sovereign right of a nation than torturing their citizens is. And if outlawing unions is okay, what's next? Non-governmental organisations? Political parties?


Indeed that is my main concern. Without a replacement what is to stop member states from unilaterally banning labor unions. International Human Rights resolutions do have their place...to make sure that people have basic rights...Forming a union and striking are both.

But, according to your own reasoning, them being on strike long enough that there is a direct health risk should be covered by the exception. And if you really wanted to get lawyery about it you could also say it only covers the right to go on strike, not to remain on strike and RP your national courts accepting this reasoning. You'd still be in compliance.

Again a misconception of the RtFU. Member states have the right to legislate what they determine to be threats to the life of the nation themselves. By this example, lets just say Country X's garbage collectors wanted to go on strike...and Country x had a law saying they could not, or could but only for two weeks...there you have your mound of smelly trash caused by striking garbage men solved. Of course with the IWF in place the trash company could just hire scabs.

Of course with the IWF in place the trash company could just hire scabs.Aww... quit picking on the scabs!

Sorry... couldn't resist

(ooc)Its quite alright...my libertarian in-laws go on like that every time i start doing "union talk".

I can hear them in my head now saying the same thing. (/OOC)

Well thats what replacement workers would be called...and Yes the IWF protects that. My argument still stands with the RtFU and IWF its a win-win for everyone.

Why try to fix what isnt broken already?

I think what he is afraid of is not the UN, but member nations doing so. And it's a perfectly valid concern. That is why the UN has generally seen fit to impose human rights resolutions such as this one upon the sovereignty of its members. Irrelevant slippery slope snipped.
I believe property is a right. Can I start imposing?

Why irrelevant? By repealing this you are effectively saying you believe banning unions is okay and nations should be free to do so, because no matter what you say in the text that's what the effect will be. What's so different between a trade union and another organisation? Before you hypothesise over what other rights you want to protect through the UN let's talk about those you propose remove protection from.

If I were, you know, more cynical, I'd say given that you also explicitly state you're not bothering to replace it if it's repealed based on so-called "flaws", you don't really care about the problems you claim the resolution has, you just want to bring it down for ideological reasons.

Why irrelevant? By repealing this you are effectively saying you believe banning unions is okay[ and nations should be free to do so
No, by repealing this I am effectively saying that

The United Nations,

Agreeing in principle with the idea that unions provide a degree of protection and empowerment for workers,

Regretting that UN Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions", goes beyond ensuring basic protections of workers rights, however, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws:

1. It permits strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives, and that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well-being;

2. It enacts no minimum threshold for union membership nor prohibition on multiple membership, thereby allowing wildcat strikes;

3. It permits military personnel to form unions and engage in industrial action, and further to join international federations, representing a clear threat to national security;

4. It does not grant nations the right to modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action, so as to ensure continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption or even war;

5. It does not extend its requirements for minimum democratic standards to transnational union federations, leaving them open to corruption and misrepresentation of their members;

Given these problems, concludes that the resolution not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities, but further that it in no way guarantees fair representation of workers, and,

Noting that this repeal shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions, but merely empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,

Repeals UN Resolution #149, "The Right to Form Unions".

because no matter what you say in the text that's what the effect will be.
So you're entirely unwilling to contest the argument?

What's so different between a trade union and another organisation? Before you hypothesise over what other rights you want to protect through the UN let's talk about those you propose remove protection from.
NGOs and political parties aren't protected by the UN. There's nothing to remove. Now, are you ready to stop telling me what to talk about in my thread, and get the fuck back on topic?

If I were, you know, more cynical, I'd say given that you also explicitly state you're not bothering to replace it if it's repealed based on so-called "flaws", you don't really care about the problems you claim the resolution has, you just want to bring it down for ideological reasons.
Good job you're not more cynical, because you'd also be more wrong.

Now, I believe property is a right. Can I impose that upon your oppressed people, please?

No, by repealing this I am effectively saying that

Oh, so repealing the resolution "The Right To Form Unions" will have no effect on the right to form unions then? Whatever you write in the text the effect is still the repeal of the right to form unions.

So you're entirely unwilling to contest the argument?

I have already done so. I have pointed out how that the "flaws" you cite can be overcome with solutions other than repeal, and how in some cases I believe they may in fact be good overall. If you want to pick that up go right ahead, but don't start swearing at me. I believe it's perfectly reasonable, you're the one who does not seem willing to address the human rights implications.

IC Kelssek already has property rights. If you're looking for some kind of absolute thing the issues of conflicting rights will be extremely difficult to overcome and I doubt it'd work. How about a related right, like those of freedom of assembly and freedom of association, rather than an unrelated one?

Good job you're not more cynical, because you'd also be more wrong.

If you say so.

NGOs and political parties aren't protected by the UN.

By that line of argument one could write a ban on megacorporations. One could even claim that the citizens of a nation are a NGO. The whole purpose of the UN from my point of view is to protect the people, where the national government wont. Thats the intent behind the RtFU, and the IWF. Together they work well and create balance.




If I were, you know, more cynical, I'd say given that you also explicitly state you're not bothering to replace it if it's repealed based on so-called "flaws", you don't really care about the problems you claim the resolution has, you just want to bring it down for ideological reasons.

Good job you're not more cynical, because you'd also be more wrong.

Now, I believe property is a right. Can I impose that upon your oppressed people, please?

Rhetoric asside, that is the appearance of the intent as astuely pointed out by the Ambassador from Kelssek.

As for Imposing property on the peoples of Ellelt....Go ahead, they already own everything thanks to our soviet system of business management/ownership.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich staggers into the "debate" after a long weekend of cavorting and carousing and reviews the transcripts, his expression growing more and more disgusted. Once finished, he throws the papers to the floor and presses a finger to the communications device in his ear.

"Get me Sheik Nikrat -- NOW!"

He pauses a few seconds while the connection is made.

"Nikrat? Yeah, it's Nadnerb..."

...

"Yes, the usual business. Got a few new targets for the Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142). They'll be sent to you momentarily"

...

"Yeah, I know. It is getting a bit tiresome, threatening all these moron nations with destruction. At least you get the fun of actually ordering it."

...

Sheik Nadnerb laughs heartily. "How'd you hear about that? Yeah, Anilegna (http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8276/angelinajolie8qp.jpg) was amazing! You wouldn't believe how flexible she is! I mean, she can get both of her legs -- and those are some fine legs! -- behind her head! Best 100,000 empty beer cans I ever spent!"

...

"Yeah, I know you can't afford that on a military salary, but it's not as though CPESL (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21) doesn't have some very talented ladies that would fit within your budget..."

...

Sheik Nadnerb laughs again. "Your wives wouldn't like it? What the fuck is that? Like they have any say in the matter. Tell you what, I'll have Ourae (http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/7366/ourae4ua.jpg) sent up there for you, on me. She's their VP of business development. I'm sure she's got plenty of er...talents. She must, to have risen so high in the ranks there."

...

"Oh, no need to thank me, cousin, just make sure you enjoy yourself. And make sure you get the Death Star within range of these idiotic nations I'm dealing with down here."

Our experts in international law have concluded that IWF will not mandate the dissolution of unions in the event of the repeal of TRtFU. We will still oppose the repeal, of course; it puts economic pressure on non-socialist or non-syndicalist states to rid themselves of unions to remain competitive - the classic “race to the bottom”.

We are willing to accede - in the name of the principle of Reciprocity - to the removal of TRfFU, but only if Free Trade legislation gets tossed or blocked. Nations that want to guarantee their citizens a better life should be able to protect that decision from being undermined by nations that wish to let their citizens dangle in the wind.

If this is not done - as we have pointed out before - the steady advance of deregulation legislation will produce a polarized world, in which everyone is either communist, corporatist, or libertarian. And that would be a bad thing for world peace and harmony.

Repealing RTFU is not an endorsement of banning unions. Passing a ban on unions would be an ebdorsement of banning unions. Repealing RTFU is an aknowledgement that there are flaws within RTFU that should not be left on the books, for any reason. Any other motive for repealing RTFU that is not explicitly expressed within the text of the proposed repeal is extraneous to this debate and entirely within the minds of the one who brought them up.

If there is need to look for a loophole to cover the flaws within the law, then that law needs to be rethought.

The Islenskan Ambassador makes his way to his seat, pulling the headphones of his mp3 player out of his ears before taking a drink of water. Clearing his throat, he leans over to the microphone and speaks,

"After careful consideration of all the arguements made, Islenska feels that the Repeal does not ban unionization, nor does it effect individual nations in allowing their population the right to form unions. The Constitutional Monarchy of Islenska supports this repeal."

Repealing RTFU is not an endorsement of banning unions. Passing a ban on unions would be an ebdorsement of banning unions. Repealing RTFU is an aknowledgement that there are flaws within RTFU that should not be left on the books, for any reason. Any other motive for repealing RTFU that is not explicitly expressed within the text of the proposed repeal is extraneous to this debate and entirely within the minds of the one who brought them up.It is not now the position of this delegation that repeal proponents seek a global ban on unions.

That said, we are all aware that legislation has unintended consequences. In this case, we observe that free trade in the absence of labor rights and environmental regulation has the inevitable effect of undermining the public policy of those nations that support these things though competition by those who deny the same. Indeed, there are some proponents of repeal who have, in this very debate, trumpeted their desire to ban unions for the sake of competitive advantage.

For this reason, we repeat our belief that the removal of resolutions establishing labor rights and mandating environmental regulation must be accompanied by the removal of restrictions on trade. You can not have the one without the other and still permit nations the full range of policy options that they ought to enjoy as sovereign states.

*snip*

You can not have the one without the other and still permit nations the full range of policy options that they ought to enjoy as sovereign states.

Oh, this is rich. You're actually pretending to be concerned about national sovereignty? That's just laughable.

Well, it would be if it weren't so ludicrous.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You think removing restrictions on trade will help somehow? How? And what restrictions on trade are currently in place that you might be referring to?

NGOs and political parties aren't protected by the UN. There's nothing to remove.

Actually I'm not sure that the above statement is correct. NGOs are protected by some humanitarian aid resolutions and political parties are granted some rights by a few resolutions dealing with political freedoms. For example, Freedom of Assembly is effectively a protection of political organizations, while Good Samaritan Laws affords some protections to NGOs.

I think that a point made to the effect that labor unions shouldn't be granted a degree of protection because other organizations haven't enjoyed protections via UN resolutions is simply not correct.

-Cassandra Thonberger

Oh, this is rich. You're actually pretending to be concerned about national sovereignty? That's just laughable.

Well, it would be if it weren't so ludicrous.Actually, if you looked at the record, you'd find we've cast quite a few pro-sovereignty votes. But the error is understandable; a lot of those votes were cast when your late and sadly unlamented predecessor occupied the chair in which you now find yourself.You think removing restrictions on trade will help somehow? How? And what restrictions on trade are currently in place that you might be referring to?No, we think the opposite: that continuing labor and environmental deregulation is incompatible with trade deregulation. You can have an absence of international trade and environmental laws, or an absence of trade barriers. But you can't have both.

While we firmly believe that the ability to unionize is valuable to workers, and provide that right within our own borders, we do not feel that this is something that should be imposed upon nations that do not feel the same way. Imposing mandates upon unwilling nations is the quickest way to alienate and antagonize them.

The first question we ask when considering legislation is this: "Does the greater good trump the right of nations to run themselves as they see fit?" In other words, does the legislation in question involve a problem that is truly urgent and demands a solution that is international in scope? It is our opinion, upon reflection, that the proposal being considered for repeal does not meet that test. Therefore, Altanar will support this repeal.

--continual refusal to address the repeal's argument snipped--
Ok then. Then neither of us have any need for your thoughts on this topic.

By that line of argument one could write a ban on megacorporations.
Yes...

One could even claim that the citizens of a nation are a NGO.
Had one been dropped on one's head as a baby, yes.

The whole purpose of the UN from my point of view is to protect the people, where the national government wont.
That's stupid, because it is the national government that chooses whether to be a UN member or not.

Thats the intent behind the RtFU, and the IWF. Together they work well and create balance.
I wrote IWF, and its sole intent was to stop the UN passing a workweek resolution.

Actually I'm not sure that the above statement is correct. NGOs are protected by some humanitarian aid resolutions and political parties are granted some rights by a few resolutions dealing with political freedoms. For example, Freedom of Assembly is effectively a protection of political organizations, while Good Samaritan Laws affords some protections to NGOs.
What I meant was: there is no right to form an NGO or a political party guaranteed by international law, and banning them is not prohibited.

I think that a point made to the effect that labor unions shouldn't be granted a degree of protection because other organizations haven't enjoyed protections via UN resolutions is simply not correct.
I can't see any inaccuracy in saying that given NGOs and political parties have not been guaranteed the protection of guarantee of existence by the UN, it seems odd to afford that right to unions alone.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Ok then. Then neither of us have any need for your thoughts on this topic.

If you will look at page one, I have done so. And given that you responded (top of page 2), I don't understand why you claim I have not addressed the argument.

Repealing RTFU is not an endorsement of banning unions. Passing a ban on unions would be an ebdorsement of banning unions.

Much more than an endorsement, it would enforce such a ban. However, surely my honourable colleague must concede that as a result of the repeal some nations will ban unions.

Repealing RTFU is an aknowledgement that there are flaws within RTFU that should not be left on the books, for any reason. Any other motive for repealing RTFU that is not explicitly expressed within the text of the proposed repeal is extraneous to this debate and entirely within the minds of the one who brought them up.

Granted, however with respect, any such objectives would hardly be made explicit, and what is also not explicit in the repeal is the intent to replace the resolution with an enhanced protection for the right to form unions. Given that Gruenberg has also stated, "I'm not planning a replacement. And if I were, it wouldn't be of any sort you'd like", I do feel that with respect to the honourable representative, their statement to the contrary is unconvincing. Even while a replacement would not be prevented, I have no doubt the representatives from Gruenberg would be arguing against it and discouraging its passage.

If there is need to look for a loophole to cover the flaws within the law, then that law needs to be rethought.

However, it is not possible in the drafting of law to forsee all circumstances, hence why judiciaries are necessary to interpret and apply laws, including international law such as we debate here. While in another body amendments may be possible, that is not the case in this Assembly. Hence we do have to live with the flaws, and work around them. Given that any flaws which have been pointed out can in our opinion be worked around in a reasonable manner, we feel that they are not grevious enough to warrant the rather serious act of repealing the entire resolution

-Eric Lattener
Ambassador to the UN

as a result of the repeal some nations will ban unions.To be'a fair... they had'a probably banned 'em before'a this was'a passed!


-Father Guido Sarducci
and c.

Actually, if you looked at the record, you'd find we've cast quite a few pro-sovereignty votes. But the error is understandable; a lot of those votes were cast when your late and sadly unlamented predecessor occupied the chair in which you now find yourself.

That clown wasn't my predecessor. He was merely a temporary replacement.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Resubmitted.

Resubmitted.

Gruenberg, what is your general agenda with these repeals? What sort of UN are you trying to work towards?

Gruenberg, what is your general agenda with these repeals? What sort of UN are you trying to work towards?

I could ask you the same thing in regards to copyright law.

Everyone has an agenda.;)

Gruenberg, what is your general agenda with these repeals? What sort of UN are you trying to work towards?I would guess an impotent one, but if I'm being unfair, Gruenberg is free to gainsay me.

My guess would be that he wants a UN that deals with matters of international import and leaves domestic issues for the nations to deal with on their own.

matters of international import

Oh, I see. Like workers' rights. Because there's no precedent at all for international legislation on that topic, right?

I could ask you the same thing in regards to copyright law.

Um, I'd like to think I'm totally transparent about that. I'd like copyright law to be completely handled by individual states. I'd settle for the gradual reduction of the required minimum duration for the NSUN copyright law.

The palentine is all for the repeal. I would hope that a replacement actually looks out for the rights of the workers, but holding Unions accountable as well as the employers. To use a RL example(This info is OOC but background: In my home state of WV, there has been a series of coal minig accidents...incidently the mining industry is one of the most dangerous in the UN. THe companies were found to be in violation of saftey regulations. My question is were were the Unions. I thought the UMA duty was to its members. They should have been doing something about these violations, insted of kissing up to politicians, and fattening their own pockets.) So I would like to see Unions to be held to the same standard of accountability as the Employers.If it can be proven that a UNion knows about violations of saftey regulations and the like,then they must be heald accountable to their members.

OOC: A polite request: don't reply to Disco. I won't be.

IC: Repeal's been resubmitted, but we won't possess (I know...) time to campaign for it. It will, we 'ope, be submitted next week for real.

~Rono Pyandran
C:rolleyes:ief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

OOC: A polite request: don't reply to Disco. I won't be.

IC: Repeal's been resubmitted, but we won't possess (I know...) time to campaign for it. It will, we 'ope, be submitted next week for real.

~Rono Pyandran
C:rolleyes:ief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies


OOC: Good advice. I'll take it.

IC:

The Great Star Empire supports this resolution wholeheartedly.

C:rolleyes:ief of Staff
OOC: How in the heck so you get an eyeroll smilie instead of an h?:confused:

OOC: How in the heck so you get an eyeroll smilie instead of an h?:confused:

Ve haff found ze zource of ze forum zhutdown! Erect ze gallows!

Camryn Langdon had spent the first part of her (morning?) session reading over the prior debate regarding the repeal. After listening to further debate, she already had a headache, although, she surmised part of that could have come from the drinks at the Strangers Bar the previous night.

(OOC: Given that we have people here from various timezones, is there a "universal" time used on the GA floor?)

She stood, clearing her throat, and spoke: "The Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei, as well as the delegational votes of the United Community Builders will stand in support of the repeal."

She fumbled for an analgesic powder as she sat, and tersely asked her secretary to get her a fresh bottle of water.

(OOC: The gallows??? Umm, it wasn't me, was it?)

Well, I still oppose it. Worker's rights is an issue of international import the RtFU and the IWF work in tandum and to repeal one would automaticly unbalance the worker's rights laws that are on the books of nations already. Of course, If the repeal is passed I will submit another resolution to protect the right to form unions.

(OOC: Its good we have the UN forum fixed now, but I'm wondering for what reason we would need gallows.)

OOC: Gruen, you could could c+p an "h" from the "You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:" at the bottom of the post screen if you want.

The palentine is all for the repeal. I would hope that a replacement actually looks out for the rights of the workers, but holding Unions accountable as well as the employers. To use a RL example(This info is OOC but background: In my home state of WV, there has been a series of coal minig accidents...incidently the mining industry is one of the most dangerous in the UN. THe companies were found to be in violation of saftey regulations. My question is were were the Unions. I thought the UMA duty was to its members. They should have been doing something about these violations, insted of kissing up to politicians, and fattening their own pockets.) So I would like to see Unions to be held to the same standard of accountability as the Employers.If it can be proven that a UNion knows about violations of saftey regulations and the like,then they must be heald accountable to their members.

"Holding Unions accountable" is silly. That's like trying to "hold political parties accountable" by passing a "party accountability resolution." What holds unions accountable is competition. During my blue collar years I was a member of several competing unions. If a union wasn't holding it's weight it wouldn't get my dues, another union would. Let the free market "hold unions accountable."

OOC: How in the heck so you get an eyeroll smilie instead of an h?:confused:
Not to hijack, but my keyboard is broken. The h doesn't work.

Ceo: Yes, I could - but a) that can't be exploited for brilliant comedic effect and b) I had something else copied when writing that post.

Anyway, I've got good feedback on this submission, so hopefully next week I can get it to quorum.

Not to hijack, but my keyboard is broken. The h doesn't work.

I don't know anyone better at Hijacking and getting away with it.

*falls over laughing*

Not to hijack, but my keyboard is broken. The h doesn't work.Could be worse... a friend of mine had his die completely, and was reduced to "typing" by using the character map.

Made IRC interesting...

The Republic of Richpoor condems this proposal. WE believe that big Global businesses are behind this attack upon the working people. While we agree that some issues are troublesome, we feel every worker needs a voice to counter the greed of big business!
Thank you
Danial Yang
UN amabassador
Republic of Richpoor

And we feel that corporations need to counter the greed of union bosses. zOMG! Complication!


-Doctor Denis Leary

And we feel that corporations need to counter the greed of union bosses. zOMG! Complication!


-Doctor Denis Leary

Again, bad unions are countered best by other unions, competition and all that. The problems with bad corporations are not solved by more corporations competing with them. Fat and lazy monopolies tend to treat their employees very well :)

Again, bad unions are countered best by other unions, competition and all that. The problems with bad corporations are not solved by more corporations competing with them. Fat and lazy monopolies tend to treat their employees very well :)

That is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever heard. Well, not ever, but it's pretty high up there.

Yes, let's solve the problem of bad unions by making more unions! Hell, let's not even try to figure out the reason why there was a bad union in the first place- let's just make more and more, and for each one that goes bad let's make another!

But hey, we can't apply the same principle to bad corporations, hh no we can't! Yeah, competition between corporations is a bad thing. And competition between unions is a good thing.

You just don't give Adamn (Smith) about logic, do you?

That is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever heard. Well, not ever, but it's pretty high up there.

Yes, let's solve the problem of bad unions by making more unions! Hell, let's not even try to figure out the reason why there was a bad union in the first place- let's just make more and more, and for each one that goes bad let's make another!

But hey, we can't apply the same principle to bad corporations, hh no we can't! Yeah, competition between corporations is a bad thing. And competition between unions is a good thing.

You just don't give Adamn (Smith) about logic, do you?

Huh? Did you read every other word?

If you feel your labor is union is corrupt, go to another.

Without unions, if you're corporation is treating you badly, what is your recourse?

If you feel your labor is union is corrupt, go to another.Except that most unions have monopolies...

"Mr. Pot? A Mr. Kettle called to inform you of your dark complexion."

Except that most unions have monopolies...

"Mr. Pot? A Mr. Kettle called to inform you of your dark complexion."

Seriously? Giving anyone a monopoly is a bad idea. If unions have monopolies in your country I suggest you look into that. In my personal experience I was a member of 3 different professional organizations at the same time.

We realllllllly dislike monopolies in our country. Our state barely has a monopoly on governance.

Seriously? Giving anyone a monopoly is a bad idea. If unions have monopolies in your country I suggest you look into that. In my personal experience I was a member of 3 different professional organizations at the same time.

We realllllllly dislike monopolies in our country. Our state barely has a monopoly on governance.

In the United States many union jobs are closed shop. Even some "open shop" jobs only offer people one union ... you can join it or not. I'll use my union as an example ... I work for the State of California, and I *must* (no choice whatsoever) pay union fees. If I choose to become an official member I have to pay additional fees, but I do not have any choice in the first set of fees or whom gets them. I don't even get to *vote* on union issues.

You could say, "So don't work for the government.", but then I ask, do you want people whom would be otherwise happy to not have representation forced on them *not* serve you? Think about it, most teachers, police officers, and many other civil servants are people you count on each and every day ... why should they *not* have the ability to serve you, but also have some more freedom in representation?

Now I'm not saying unions are necessarily bad, but in the case of government workers, they aren't around to fight big and "evil" corporations, but instead are around to fight elected officials -- i.e. people whom in theory can be removed from office. It is pretty interesting when you also consider that -- and more than a bit confusing! :/

While the Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei agrees that unions can be beneficial, and indeed needed in some instances, we do not like the language of the existing UN Resolution (#149). Regardless of whether or not Gruenberg plans to submit a revised Resolution of the existing standard, we are sure somone will, even if it's us. Consequently, we wholeheartedly endorse repeal of UN Resolution #149.

Votes FOR are from the Most Serene Republic of Drae Nei, and all UN nations of United Community Builders (7 additional votes, 8 in total).

In the United States many union jobs are closed shop. Even some "open shop" jobs only offer people one union ... you can join it or not.
OOC: That's exactly how it is where I work. Every union member at the facility is a member of the Steelworkers Union. I am a robotics technician and PLC programmer. I set up, program and service robots and associated systems on the assembly line. I have nothing to do with steelworking, steelmaking or steel anything. The electricians there are not IBEW members, they are Steelworkers. The truck drivers who move trailers around in the yard are not Teamsters, they are Steelworkers. And so on and so forth throughout the facility.

OOC: That's exactly how it is where I work. Every union member at the facility is a member of the Steelworkers Union. I am a robotics technician and PLC programmer. I set up, program and service robots and associated systems on the assembly line. I have nothing to do with steelworking, steelmaking or steel anything. The electricians there are not IBEW members, they are Steelworkers. The truck drivers who move trailers around in the yard are not Teamsters, they are Steelworkers. And so on and so forth throughout the facility.


OOC:

This is the case with me as well, although I'm not a steelworker. Where I work, we are members of the Service Employees International Union. And while I'm quite happy with my union, and the benefits that I would otherwise not receive due to my industry (resteraunt--Chef) I can understand that there are some abuses in the Union system. I fully believe in the right for employees to form unions...if they were not needed they would not be formed...thats dialectics 101 for you.

Having recently won the post of shop steward, I can tell you Im quite active. And I will fight for the rights of other workers to form unions...Including the push to place on the ballot of my RL state's constitution a right to form unions admendment...but it will probably fail because "big sugar" managed to get passed this past year an admendment to require further admendments pass by a 2/3rds majority.

IC:

The only way Ellelt can support this repeal is with debate on a possible replacement. We firmly hold that the RtFU and the IWF both protect the working peoples fairly when they work together. Further we do not wish to see the forced ablolition of unions in other countries.

OOC: Continuing this thread hijack, IT workers (my line of work) are not, I believe, represented by any national union. There's WashTech (http://www.washtech.org/) (Washington Alliance of Technology Workers), but they're hardly national in scope.

(Personally, I'd rather we were licensed professionals, but that's not ever going to happen.)

OOC: Continuing this thread hijack, IT workers (my line of work) are not, I believe, represented by any national union. There's WashTech (http://www.washtech.org/) (Washington Alliance of Technology Workers), but they're hardly national in scope.

(Personally, I'd rather we were licensed professionals, but that's not ever going to happen.)

There are a lot of other organizations in competition with Unions as well. International non-profit, professional organizations, for example. (OOC: IEEE. organizations behind conferences, etc.)

Having recently won the post of shop steward,
My condolences.

Resubmitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=unions) - approve or I poke you in the face.

Resubmitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=unions) - approve or I poke you in the face.

*Puts on welder's facemask*

Where did it go? It was there. I saw it earlier. I swear it. I checked on it just now to see how it was coming along, and it's gone now. Me confused.:(

I had a change of heart.

I had a change of heart.

No diggity?

A change of heart? Surly the Repealmeister (and I do mean that as a term of respect) isnt going to not repeal something.

I dont understand could you please explain?