NationStates Jolt Archive

I've received some telegrams in regards to the Labor Relations Act I submitted for proposal. Given UNR #149, of which I was not aware (many thanks to Iron Felix for pointing this out to me), it is an illegal proposal in that its redundant. However, Iron Felix is convinced, as am I, that UNR #149 is insufficient and that the Labor Relations Act would be a much suitable replacement. To this end, I propose, UNR149 ought to be repealed and replaced with the LRA. However, I want to make sure that the LRA is as encompassing as I can make it, in both word and spirit, to protect the rights of workers while limiting the potential for corruption in labor unions. So I've opened up this thread for conversation.

Following this opening post I will post a copy of the LRA for your review.

Concerns, input, debate, nitpicking and vicious slander, all are encouraged. If there's going to be a campaign to protect labor unions, I want the final law that comes out of it to be as good as we can make it.

Labor Relations Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Sunya

Description: Recognizing that labor unions will exist and granting that workers have an intrinsic right to form into collective bargaining agreements;

With respect to UN Resolution #38 and its repeal by UN Resolution #143, adressing the concerns thereof;

And defining a labor union as an entity, organized by a workforce, for the purpose of barganing with said workforces' employers for increased pay and benefits;

Be it resolved that;

No nation of this body shall impede the rights of private sector workers to organize nor shall laws be passed limiting the ability of labor unions to undertake said organizing activity.

No law shall be passed, and no activity tolerated, which discriminates against the nonuionized workforce or coerces the nonunionized workforce to join or otherwise support a labor union.

Unions and union leaders must be democratically elected by the workforce they represent. All nations must legally recognize the contracts negotiated by a democratically elected labor union, at home or abroad. Legal recognition shall be guaranteed a union which abides by the other stipulations contained within this proposal.

Unions lacking democratic process and procedure, or transparency of budgeting and internal process, within reasonable limits, shall not be recognized as legitimate representatives of workers. Nations have the right to approve public authorities, democratically elected, which will be endowed with the power to oversee union democratic process and insure against fraudulent voting or undemocratic labor activity. Said authority will not be endowed with the right to influence contract negotiations, labor actions, or legitimate union elections or activity. Said body will also have the power to force a return to work and negotiations whenever a strike or other work stoppage lasts for more than 90 days.

Public sector workers, such as military, or government employees, have the right to organize under labor union contract. However, whenever said contract interferes in the national security or political stability of a nation, said nation has the right to temporarily suspend sections of the contract and force renegotiation.

Unions have the right to form into national and international federations.

Workers shall be guaranteed, by their respective governments, protection against anti-union discrimination or coercion by their employers or agents thereof.

Workers and labor unions engaging in labor activity must abide by all laws of their respective nations.

The right to organize, assemble, canvass, petition, strike, or otherwise engage in activity, political or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining contract negotiation, increasing membership, or otherwise advancing the cause and agenda of a democratically elected and legally abiding union, shall not be infringed upon by any member nation of this body. No law shall be passed, and no activity tolerated, governmental or otherwise, which infringes upon this right.

I believe that this is already covered by "Right to Form Unions."

And even if it is not, we do not support it, for both natsov reasons, and excessive intrusion.

I believe that this is already covered by "Right to Form Unions."
I believe he pointed that out in his first post and expressed a desire to repeal "The Right to Form Unions" and replace it.

Now the biggest complaint I've seen is the unionization of military personnel. There also seems to be some concern that a military union may enter into a strike during times of national crisis or it may become corrupted by an international organization.

The following clause would, in fact, guarantee their right to form a union:

Public sector workers, such as military, or government employees, have the right to organize under labor union contract.

And, yes, this clause would mean that they could, in fact, join up with an international:

Unions have the right to form into national and international federations.

Truly, the debate here is if the remainder of the public sector clause would be sufficient to protect a nation from military strikes during times of dire national need:

However, whenever said contract interferes in the national security or political stability of a nation, said nation has the right to temporarily suspend sections of the contract and force renegotiation.

As its written now, it only allows a government to suspect portions of a collective bargaining agreement, not the whole thing. Nor would it allow the government to prevent a public sector union from striking, or otherwise stripping it of rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Act.


I propose:

Non combat personnel have the rights of other public sector employees as stated above, so the government could still suspend their contract. A separate clause for combat personnel would grant the right to form a union, but under severely limited conditions, and would not have the right to strike. They would, however, have the right to engage in political activity to press for the concerns of the nations fighting men and women.

Comments?

I believe that this is already covered by "Right to Form Unions."

And even if it is not, we do not support it, for both natsov reasons, and excessive intrusion.


Well, I'm not asking you to support it. I'm asking for input to make it better. If you're just anti-union in general, that's your thang, but I thank you for your time.

Sunya, I suggest you post this on Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php), it's the best place to get help on your resolutions. It really helped my repeal of Ban Trafficking in Persons (although that sadly never reached quorum).

Step ahead of you, my friend! I've already posted a copy of the Act in the "Repeals and Replacements" section of the Reclamation forum. I'm going to post the same intro there as I have here, along with a link back to this forum.

Iron Felix introduced me to the Reclamation forum. I just wanted to cast as a broad a net as I could.

Really? I swear I had already checked Reclamation to make sure you hadn't already posted it there. *gets eysight examined*

No worries. I can be pretty quick when I want to be. You might have just missed it.

I believe he pointed that out in his first post and expressed a desire to repeal "The Right to Form Unions" and replace it.

Yes, you're right. I'm just not that good with the proposal numbers. I should probably look it up in the future.

Well, I'm not asking you to support it. I'm asking for input to make it better. If you're just anti-union in general, that's your thang, but I thank you for your time.

Okeedokee then. I'll take a quick look over it and put my anti-union tendencies aside, tell you what I think. Good to see someone intelligent tackling unions.

Well, truthfully, I'm pro-union. In fact, I belong to one. But I do believe in two things: A)the right to democratically organize and B) the limitation of concentrations of power. Workers have the right, I feel, but you don't want unions to become an unduly powerful influence in society anymore than you want coporations to, so you have to construct checks to maintain balance and keep them honest and representative.

Any critique you have would be welcome, specifically because you do have antiunion tendencies. You're approaching it from an angle that I cannot, and you will see faults that I may not fully comprehend. With some time, dedication, and debate, we'll hopefully be able to hash out a sound compromise and then let everyone vote on it.

Ain't democracy grand?

[B]

And defining a labor union as an entity, organized by a workforce, for the purpose of barganing with said workforces' employers for increased pay and benefits;

How are we to define the word "worker" in the context of this resolution? Of course, the word "worker" has a generally understood meaning, but I see this as giving carte blanche to white-collar unions, salary unions, and other such entities.

No nation of this body shall impede the rights of private sector workers to organize nor shall laws be passed limiting the ability of labor unions to undertake said organizing activity.

You should define "this body" to be "The United Nations." That's much clearer.

No law shall be passed, and no activity tolerated, which discriminates against the nonuionized workforce or coerces the nonunionized workforce to join or otherwise support a labor union.

This is rather unspecific. Does it mean that the UN shall pass no law? Or does it mean that nations can't pass law?


Public sector workers, such as military, or government employees, have the right to organize under labor union contract. However, whenever said contract interferes in the national security or political stability of a nation, said nation has the right to temporarily suspend sections of the contract and force renegotiation.

Here is where I get stuck. There is absolutely no reason for the military to organize. I see your attempt to assuage my obvious fears, but that provision isn't going to do it. Government employees also should not have the right to unionize. In fact, cut the whole section. I don't like the idea of government employees and public-sector officials being able to unionized, most of all the military.

Unions have the right to form into national and international federations.

Absolutely not. I will not have my nation taken in a stranglehold by an international group of unions. I understand your intention to "unite the workers of the world," but this is just asking for trouble.


The right to organize, assemble, canvass, petition, strike, or otherwise engage in activity, political or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining contract negotiation, increasing membership, or otherwise advancing the cause and agenda of a democratically elected and legally abiding union, shall not be infringed upon by any member nation of this body. No law shall be passed, and no activity tolerated, governmental or otherwise, which infringes upon this right.

This final clause is so rigid that it's a dealbreaker. You had myself and Prince Tang nodding in agreement up until the public sector clause and this final clause.

The sovereign rights of a nation include the maintenance of the peace, or at least the maintenance of stability. You list a veritable panoply of fine and dandy actions a union can take, which are fine and safe by themselves, but there is no exception for cases of national distress, emergency, or said actions causing violence or destruction to property. As well, you do not allow for corrupt unions to be busted by government entities.

Finally, a conundrum: Under this resolution, the military is allowed to unionize. As well, unions have the right to form international federations. Theoretically, there could be an internation union of military forces. That's a dealbreaker right there.


That's about it for now. I look forward to your responses.

Scrap the requirement that unions be democratic. Unions derive power from the workers that go along with them. Not going to work is, in effect, a vote for the strike - if you go on strike, you probably approve of it. As long as a union has the support of its workers, it ought to be recognized.

~Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

Scrap the requirement that unions be democratic. Unions derive power from the workers that go along with them. Not going to work is, in effect, a vote for the strike - if you go on strike, you probably approve of it. As long as a union has the support of its workers, it ought to be recognized.

~Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations
I agree with this. It has been pointed out before that the UN does not require democratic government in it's member nations, why would we then see the need to require it in labor organizations.

That's a good point, Felix. But just because the UN is full of autocratic nincompoops doesn't mean they should be tolerated everywhere else.

Ceorana, the reason why I put that requirement in was to counter objections raised in UNR143 of UNR38:

[UNR38] "3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers "

As one of the primary, and most easily rectified, complaints about the initial resolution, I saw fit to incorporate a democratic clause.

Though I agree, that as long as a union is supported by its workers, it ought to be recognized, but how else would workers show support for union leadership if not by vote? I feel the democratic clause does two things: 1)safeguards against union-boss corruption by mandating elections and 2)insures that union leadership is, in fact, representative of workers.

I'd be much more willing to nix the democracy clause if there's a better method of achieving those two objectives.

I could vote in favour of it if the following was altered or removed:

Legal recognition shall be guaranteed a union which abides by the other stipulations contained within this proposal.
The Federation of Tin Pot Little Internet Countries does not grant legal status to corporations or businesses, giving it to unions would upset the equilibrium between employer and employee. Besides, there is a legal definition given in the resolution, I can't think of another reason that legal status for unions would be required.


will also have the power to force a return to work and negotiations whenever a strike or other work stoppage lasts for more than 90 days.
On the grounds that nobody, trade unionist or not, should be forced to work, I object to this.

Workers shall be guaranteed, by their respective governments, protection against anti-union discrimination or coercion by their employers or agents thereof.
"Anti-union discrimination" needs to be defined, I think. Also, if this made it illegal for an employer to refuse somebody the opportunity to work because he is unionised, I would have to vote against the proposal.

No law shall be passed, and no activity tolerated, which discriminates against the nonuionized workforce or coerces the nonunionized workforce to join or otherwise support a labor union.
For similar reasons to the point above. An employer has the right to only offer his job positions to union workers if he so chooses. However, I see the need for protection of "scabs" from violent trade unionists.


The right to organize, assemble, canvass, petition, strike, or otherwise engage in activity, political or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining contract negotiation, increasing membership, or otherwise advancing the cause and agenda of a democratically elected and legally abiding union, shall not be infringed upon by any member nation of this body. No law shall be passed, and no activity tolerated, governmental or otherwise, which infringes upon this right.
It depends on how this is interpreted. For example, would an employer sacking a striking employee infringe the employees "right to strike"? I would argue that it does not, seeing as the employee has every right to strike in the eyes of the state, and his employer cannot prevent him from striking by force, but the employee is still responsible for the consequences of his actions. Much like an employee has the right to free speech, but if he begins spouting racial slurs at work an employer cannot prevent the employee exercising his right to free speech by force, but he can sack the employee for the way that he exercises his rights.

Finally, I wouldn't call this a "strong" proposal. A proposal that granted employees excessive powers and restricted the rights employers would be "strong". However, this doesn't seem nearly as restrictive. In an acceptable form (not far off what it is now) it would recognise the rights of employees in the eyes of the state and protect them from violent coercion of employers, while still protecting the property rights of employers.

Good stuff, Allech, I'll do my best:

How are we to define the word "worker" in the context of this resolution? Of course, the word "worker" has a generally understood meaning, but I see this as giving carte blanche to white-collar unions, salary unions, and other such entities.

First off, yes, I do feel white-collar workers ought to be allowed to organize. Though they more often tend to be organized into "professional organizations" that do not behave as labor unions in the traditional sense, they do represent the concerns of these workers.

You should define "this body" to be "The United Nations." That's much clearer.


Good idea!

This is rather unspecific. Does it mean that the UN shall pass no law? Or does it mean that nations can't pass law?

I intended it to mean nations cannot pass laws overriding this one and I will clarify it as such.

Here is where I get stuck. There is absolutely no reason for the military to organize. I see your attempt to assuage my obvious fears, but that provision isn't going to do it. Government employees also should not have the right to unionize. In fact, cut the whole section. I don't like the idea of government employees and public-sector officials being able to unionized, most of all the military.

Here, I think, is where we have problems. The reason why I defined public-sector officials as having a right to be unionized is the following:

Imagine a society (and there are many in nationstates) where the public sector (read: government) represents 50% or more of the gross domestic product of a nation. Conceivably, that means its employing a proportional percentage of the workforce. Are we to truly deny the right to form a union to such a large percentage of a nations population? I know its a hypothetical, but its nonetheless a realistic scenario, because public-sector can also include nationalized companies.

I'm working on a new version that denies labor rights to combat personnel, which we can extend to the whole military. But, short of creating a more precise definition of "public-sector", I'm not sure if this should be dropped in full.

Absolutely not. I will not have my nation taken in a stranglehold by an international group of unions. I understand your intention to "unite the workers of the world," but this is just asking for trouble.

To which I have no good response. If employers can be global, so should labor.

The sovereign rights of a nation include the maintenance of the peace, or at least the maintenance of stability. You list a veritable panoply of fine and dandy actions a union can take, which are fine and safe by themselves, but there is no exception for cases of national distress, emergency, or said actions causing violence or destruction to property. As well, you do not allow for corrupt unions to be busted by government entities.

This was intended to insure against open anti-union hostility on the part of the government. Read the rest of the act to address your concerns:


Workers and labor unions engaging in labor activity must abide by all laws of their respective nations.


Unions lacking democratic process and procedure, or transparency of budgeting and internal process, within reasonable limits, shall not be recognized as legitimate representatives of workers. Nations have the right to approve public authorities, democratically elected, which will be endowed with the power to oversee union democratic process and insure against fraudulent voting or undemocratic labor activity. Said authority will not be endowed with the right to influence contract negotiations, labor actions, or legitimate union elections or activity. Said body will also have the power to force a return to work and negotiations whenever a strike or other work stoppage lasts for more than 90 days.

I'll make it less rigid to allow for exceptions of national distress or emergency, but as for destruction of property, I believe the act already addresses that.

I look forward to your responses.

Though I agree, that as long as a union is supported by its workers, it ought to be recognized, but how else would workers show support for union leadership if not by vote? I feel the democratic clause does two things: 1)safeguards against union-boss corruption by mandating elections and 2)insures that union leadership is, in fact, representative of workers.

By doing what the leadership says. They can vote with their feet - if they don't like the union, they can leave.

Here, I think, is where we have problems. The reason why I defined public-sector officials as having a right to be unionized is the following:

Imagine a society (and there are many in nationstates) where the public sector (read: government) represents 50% or more of the gross domestic product of a nation. Conceivably, that means its employing a proportional percentage of the workforce. Are we to truly deny the right to form a union to such a large percentage of a nations population? I know its a hypothetical, but its nonetheless a realistic scenario, because public-sector can also include nationalized companies.

I understand your position, but I think it's more advantageous to look at soldiers not as laborers or workers, but as exactly what they are: soldiers. Sure, people might try to call them "merchants of death" or "workers of war" or some such fluffy title, but they are specifically soldiers: people who are sworn to fight, defend, etc. It becomes dangerous.

I'm working on a new version that denies labor rights to combat personnel, which we can extend to the whole military. But, short of creating a more precise definition of "public-sector", I'm not sure if this should be dropped in full.

I look forward to seeing it.


To which I have no good response. If employers can be global, so should labor.

Okay then, we're at an impass. I think you'd get more votes if you dropped that clause, though.

This was intended to insure against open anti-union hostility on the part of the government. Read the rest of the act to address your concerns:


Workers and labor unions engaging in labor activity must abide by all laws of their respective nations.


Unions lacking democratic process and procedure, or transparency of budgeting and internal process, within reasonable limits, shall not be recognized as legitimate representatives of workers. Nations have the right to approve public authorities, democratically elected, which will be endowed with the power to oversee union democratic process and insure against fraudulent voting or undemocratic labor activity. Said authority will not be endowed with the right to influence contract negotiations, labor actions, or legitimate union elections or activity. Said body will also have the power to force a return to work and negotiations whenever a strike or other work stoppage lasts for more than 90 days.

I'll make it less rigid to allow for exceptions of national distress or emergency, but as for destruction of property, I believe the act already addresses that.

I look forward to your responses.

Interesting. I see a few legal loopholes the Empire could jump through, but nothing too harmful. Anything to say about the internation organization of military forces?

Other than that, I have no concerns. Like I said, I can't vote for this in the name of the Empire, and neither will Prince Tang, but you've got a good writing style and a cool head about you.

Well, as for the international organization of military forces, the Act only applies to those who actually have a right to unionize. If its rewritten such that military personnel have no such right, then that moots the issue.

Good stuff, Allech. Thanks for the input.

TPLICs, legal status is necessary for unions for two reasons: 1) to protect their rights and 2) to regulate them. Essentially the same reason why anything else is legal. Your nation's habit of not legally recognizing businesses is interesting. I wonder, how do you enforce contracts for entities that have no legal existence?

I understand your sentiment that nobody should be forced to work and, frankly, I'm inclined to agree. That clause exists to break impasse, nothing more. Keep in mind that nothing obliges a government to utilize this power, but it's also a carrot to governments in that they won't have to tolerate a potential strike of an economically critical industry for long. OOC: This regulation exists in the United States Labor Relations Act, its just a bad idea to enforce it too much. Makes you look anti-worker.

"Anti-union discrimination" needs to be defined, I think. Also, if this made it illegal for an employer to refuse somebody the opportunity to work because he is unionised, I would have to vote against the proposal.


Anti-union discrimination is intentionally fuzzy. I find that sometimes its best to let future courts figure it out. However, I will offer a broad definition in future drafts. No, it won't prevent an employer from not-hiring a unionized worker, but things don't usually work that way. Typically, a union contract exists between a employer and their employees. If you leave your company and try to work for someone else outside of your trade, you effectively leave the union. And then you probably won't take a non-union job, because that usually means a substantial cut in wages and benefits. In other words, union workers tend to stay union. Otherwise means less food on the table. So the hiring issue is really moot, but I will nonetheless offer a broad definition of discrimination.

For similar reasons to the point above. An employer has the right to only offer his job positions to union workers if he so chooses. However, I see the need for protection of "scabs" from violent trade unionists.

Scabs will be protected by a nations' own law against acts violent crime. Just because someone is crossing your picket does not give you the right to lynch him. We're all just trying to make a living at the end of the day.


For example, would an employer sacking a striking employee infringe the employees "right to strike"?


Yes. This is illegal in every country that recognizes unions. The right to strike is fundamentally the only real force that a union has. If an employer can simply fire them for excercising the strike in an attempt to gain better wages and benefits, then you basically take away the only real bargaining chip workers' have. As we say in my Local: "You don't hold the card, the Man does."

Employers do indeed have property rights. I'm not trying to legalize sabotage by a bunch of Luddites. Just recognize and protect the rights of workers. Unions are a potentially valuable force on the market and an active union workforce means that workers and employers can hash out wages and benefits without interference by the government. Its just one more tool by which free people can govern themselves.

Thanks to all for your input thus far. I'll have a new draft available here shortly and then you all can ream me on that for a while.

Government employees also should not have the right to unionize. In fact, cut the whole section. I don't like the idea of government employees and public-sector officials being able to unionized, most of all the military.Government employees must be allowed to unionize; otherwise Stalinist nations get a pass on the whole resolution.

We see no reason to forbid the unionization of soldiers, so long as military organizations are still permitted to apply military discipline to them (which would render striking a form of desertion). Further, given the sorry history of nations in violating pay and pension promises (pay in arrears or in bogus coupons, denial of pensions and other veteran's benefits), we think that there might even be a greater argument in favor of military unions that other kinds of unions. Also, there is no evidence that unionized military organizations are less effective than non-unionized ones (RL: The Netherlands).

We see no reason to forbid the unionization of soldiersExcept that part of being a soldier is sacrificing your individuality for the nation and the military. A union, protecting individual "rights" runs counter to that.

Further, given the sorry history of nations in violating pay and pension promises (pay in arrears or in bogus coupons, denial of pensions and other veteran's benefits), we think that there might even be a greater argument in favor of military unions that other kinds of unions.Except that since striking would be desertion (which, in many nations, is a capital offence), the union has most of its power stripped anyway, thus putting those concerns back in the arena of rights groups. Where it should be in the first place.

Also, there is no evidence that unionized military organizations are less effective than non-unionized ones (RL: The Netherlands).Ah yes, the mighty Dutch army. What have they done lately? Ah yes, that's right... the fought for the "right" to not get haircuts.

Except that part of being a soldier is sacrificing your individuality for the nation and the military. A union, protecting individual "rights" runs counter to that.Is it the purpose of unions to defend individual rights? Or - as collective bargaining organizations - is their purpose to protect their members en masse? We think the latter.Except that since striking would be desertion (which, in many nations, is a capital offence), the union has most of its power stripped anyway, thus putting those concerns back in the arena of rights groups. Where it should be in the first place.Unions can still have power without the right to strike. For one thing, they can lobby for changes in work rules (military regulations, in this case); for another, they represent a way for grievances to be brought to the fore.Ah yes, the mighty Dutch army. What have they done lately? Ah yes, that's right... the fought for the "right" to not get haircuts.RL: I've seen nothing to indicate that unionization has harmed the Dutch army; can you show us tangible proof that it's less effective than other Western European armies?

(And remember, it doesn't have to be better; we're not arguing that unions make armies better. The question is, do you have real evidence that it's worse?)

Or is that something that we should just automatically assume from the cut of their hair? After all, history conclusively proves that the better groomed army always wins (<cough> French Revolution <cough>).

With my Nation's current Union problems... I'm thinking of expanding the Crimes that deserve the Death Penalty...

Is it the purpose of unions to defend individual rights? Or - as collective bargaining organizations - is their purpose to protect their members en masse? We think the latter.Unions promote an us-versus-them mentality. Workers vs. Management. That sort of thing is poison to the military. Leave soldiers' rights to third parties and to military families.

Unions can still have power without the right to strike. For one thing, they can lobby for changes in work rules (military regulations, in this case)Unions are hardly needed for this. Again, advocacy groups.

I've seen nothing to indicate that unionization has harmed the Dutch army; can you show us tangible proof that it's less effective than other Western European armies?Considering most Western European armies do little more than march around and look pretty, or sport jaunty blue UN hats, I don't see the thrust of that comparison. Is it less effective than the American or British army? I think the answer is rather obvious.

(And remember, it doesn't have to be better; we're not arguing that unions make armies better. The question is, do you have real evidence that it's worse?)If they don't make it better, they necessarily make it worse by adding a layer of beuracracy that isn't needed or helpful.

Or is that something that we should just automatically assume from the cut of their hair? After all, history conclusively proves that the better groomed army always wins (<cough> French Revolution <cough>).Once again, you miss the point.

If they don't make it better, they necessarily make it worse by adding a layer of beuracracy that isn't needed or helpful.Unless they improve morale...Considering most Western European armies do little more than march around and look pretty, or sport jaunty blue UN hats, I don't see the thrust of that comparison. Is it less effective than the American or British army? I think the answer is rather obvious.RL: So, in other words, there's been no loss of effectiveness due to unionization, since what makes the U.S. and U.K. military more effective is combat experience and not the lack of unions.Unions promote an us-versus-them mentality. Workers vs. Management. That sort of thing is poison to the military. Leave soldiers' rights to third parties and to military families.Are you sure that it's not management resentment of the existence of a union that does this?

Whatever the case may be, the sad truth is that some nations still live in the era of Frederick the Great when it comes to their ideas about how soldiers should be treated. If unions improve that situation by forcing such armies to treat their soldiers like people instead of dogs, then that's likely to work out for the better.

Historically, soldiers have been among the most mistreated people on Earth, and it's usually been utterly unnecessary. If anybody needs a break, it's the rank and file.

Are you sure that it's not management resentment of the existence of a union that does this?

No more so than the existence of management causes resentment with the union. In fact, the mere existence of management is the union's sole reason for existence. What would it be without collective bargaining?

This is the crux of the military argument: do soldiers have the right to unionize and bargain for things with their commanders? The answer is a solid no, as it causes a breakdown in the hierarchy of command that is unconcionable. Soldiers are not workers, as fighters they have the singular ability to refuse orders and mutiny. It's built-in collective barganing.

Whatever the case may be, the sad truth is that some nations still live in the era of Frederick the Great when it comes to their ideas about how soldiers should be treated. If unions improve that situation by forcing such armies to treat their soldiers like people instead of dogs, then that's likely to work out for the better.

So what? Smart nations treat their soldiers well, not like dogs. Good fighting forces know why they're fighting, get good compensation, and aren't fed moldy meat and horsewhipped. Once the soldiers get fed up, bad things stop happening to them. History has proved this time and time again; an unpopular, stupid commander usually gets shafted by his men.

OOC: Russia is the prime example here. They didn't need unions to improve their conditions, killing their officers worked just fine.

Historically, soldiers have been among the most mistreated people on Earth, and it's usually been utterly unnecessary. If anybody needs a break, it's the rank and file.

And historically, the soldiers that get treated badly revolt against their oppressors. Really, there's no argument.

OOC: German Army WWI, Russia, prime examples. The Bonus Army, for a non-combat situation.

Sorry I haven't replied in so long. I've had a few things to attend to in real life. Not to say you guys aren't important to me. :fluffle:

There's been some good debate here, but it seems the major sticking point has been the unionization of the military. As such, I will remove the clause allowing this in the final proposal. It isn't a huge issue anyway, since most nations just conscript and so few people choose to be career military officers. My initial effort was not to pit officers against their men...a well run military would have checks against this anyway. My initial effort was to insure that soldiers and officers alike would have the ability to bargain for better pay, benefits, and conditions in a professional military. Take the US for example. Soldiers here really don't make that much...despite being classified as a "profession" and being "crucial" to the surivial of the nation, they don't make much more than I do and actually have fewer benefits. Perhaps this reflects more the morality of individual nations and the concept of sacrifice for the whole. I'd fight if they drafted me, but you can be damned sure somebody higher up is getting a bullet through the brain if they ordered me to My Lai some unarmed villagers. I fight for nations and causes, not for governments. I'm not into sacrfice and service and all that BS. If someone takes up arms against me, I take up arms against them. But if my government gets itself and all of us into some hot water against my will, then I think its high time for another revolution. Then again, given some of my activities, I'm sure the Feds have me somewhere low on their list of "subversives".

Right now, my biggest sticking point personally is figuring out whether or not to go along with this. As it stands now, the current resolution on the books isn't good, but its adequate and achieves most of the things I want to do anyway. I suppose some protection is better than none at all and I may cool my heals and wait untill someone else tries to repeal what's already on the books. Besides, at this point, the current draft, taking into account all concerns voiced, would just be a better worded version of what we already have.

to hell with legally protected unions. i dont want my industries having to deal with this crap, or i'll have strikes everyday.

ps- unionizing armies is idiotic. of course theyre treated like dogs, theyre told they arent worth a dogpile on the bottom of sarge's shoe. why? they must be broken. no rebellion against upper ranks can possibly be tolerated in the military, and thats exactly what unions are there to do. it really is poison.

Well I think that the Draft is pretty good as it is. But I would suggest that the language providing for military unions be removed.

Soldiers, by the very nature of the job, lay down their individuality for the collective safety and security of the nation.

If this has been moved to Reclamation I will debate it further there unless important issues come up here.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.