NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions" Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=unions)
The Right to Form Unions (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=148)

ASSERTING the rights of workers to form unions and the importance of fair wages,

APPLAUDING the honorable intention of UN Resolution #149 "The Right to Form Unions" to provide protection for all workers in member nations,
HOWEVER REGRETTING that this resolution, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws, creates a system that neither appropriately protects workers nor strikes a proper balance between worker protection and national security, namely in that it:

1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups, thus implementing on an international scale a bias-prone system for an issue that could be better managed, due to the complexity of union-employer relations, on a national scale;

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;

5- DENIES member nations the necessary ability to temporarily suspend or modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action in order to promote security and continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption, or war;

THEREFORE CONCLUDING that the resolution in question not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities, but further that it in no way guarantees the fair and just protections of union workers,

NOTING that the repeal of this flawed legislation shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions, but will instead empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #149 "The Right to Form Unions".

Authored by the members of ACCEL

Will you guys quit telegramming me about this repeal? In less than 24 hours I've received 3 identical telegrams about this. I'm going to say this once, as the President of Flibbleite UN Representatives' Union #1 I oppose repealing this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

For the love of god, this is the worst idea for a telegram campaign ever! I have gotten, just like Bob, three identical telegrams from three different people.

I really want to see this one go down, but you need to stop.

If Delegates are getting multiple telegrams, you're spamming and need to reassess your strategy.

We have seen some alarmist repeal proposals in our short time in this august chamber, but this one really takes the biscuit. Its combination of exaggeration and irrelevancy are quite breathtaking in their deviousness and we have no hesistation in urging all sensible nations to oppose this repeal.

If Delegates are getting multiple telegrams, you're spamming and need to reassess your strategy.


OMG Moderator Independence! They were shooting themselves in the foot and you stopped them! That's a clear example of bi-- of independence. You're supposed to be neutr -- no, I mean partisan -- no, I mean ...

Sorry, Hack. I'm just having a bit of trouble adjusting to the new form of debate the authors used in this novel repeal bid.

Like, I get that "independent" now means "biased" and "exempts from" in the original resolution means "includes in" in the repeal.

But I'm having a bit of trouble with how "international organisations" are automatically "violent" and so "a critical threat to national security" ... it's them danged dangerous Doctors Without Borders we're talking about, right?

It is the considered opinion of the citizens of Dashanzi that the proponents of this repeal should "give it a fucking rest".

Benedictions,

It is the considered opinion of the citizens of Dashanzi that the proponents of this repeal should "give it a fucking rest".

I'm assuming, should the repeal get anywhere, those who will inevitably clamour for its replacement will lead by example?

~Captain Biggles McXiminez
Arrrrrmbassador to the United Nations

Assume away, Arrrrrmbassador.

Authored by the members of ACCELOpposed.

NSUNR #149 has a significant and dangerous flaw. It limits the prohibition of strikes to those which "directly endanger the life of citizens." We would very much like to see it repealed and replaced with a version containing a reasonable provision on this matter. However, we will not vote for a repeal which contains such overblown rhetoric, misrepresentation, and Chicken Little-style alarmism.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Opposed.Support.

We support this repeal! Granted it will probably take me two weeks to explain it to Flash, but in the end I'll just say, "It's a repeal. The text doesn't matter."

He will, I suppose, counter with, "Didn't you say that the tet does matter?"

And I will reply with. "I used to. I've long given up on any text that matters."

Tzor Red-Brown, smart, dexterous and of course looking forward to getting back to paradise and letting that Blonde explain our positions.

Opposed.

Oh, how cute! A vote against based entirely on the group of people who wrote it.

Grow up. That ACCEL joke is getting old.

We support, despite the overblown rhetoric and alarmism.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Oh, how cute! A vote against based entirely on the group of people who wrote it.
As distinct from the similar action based on the same principle taken by the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny, which merely happens to be in favour of the proposal rather than against? We invite Ambassador Pro Tempore Erman to demonstrate that he is not holding a double standard here.

1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;
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;

?

"That's right. Just question mark. The Great Commonwealth will withhold judgment for the time being. Though, personally, I'm leaning away from this."

As distinct from the similar action based on the same principle taken by the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny, which merely happens to be in favour of the proposal rather than against? We invite Ambassador Pro Tempore Erman to demonstrate that he is not holding a double standard here.

Double Standard? Hardly. It is a well-known fact that the Kennyites are radical capitalists. It is also well known that the Hirotans are tree-hugging commies. But justifying your vote by simply thumbing your nose at those who wrote the proposal is juvenile and ridiculous.

I invite the Hirotan ambassador to tell the assembly why he opposes the proposal, rather than just poo-pooing the members of ACCEL.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

The system works. I made a stupid mistake in my telegramming, won't happen again, I'm very sorry, and I take full blame for this.

Everyone needs to take it down a notch.

Furthermore, everyone needs to read the repeal and resolution carefully.

?

"That's right. Just question mark. The Great Commonwealth will withhold judgment for the time being. Though, personally, I'm leaning away from this."There was some discussion on the proposal's language modifying the right to strike only in situations where civilian lives are "directly" threatened, omitting potentially harmful scenarios where mass strikes could affect public health, safety or civil order, or even indirectly endanger civilian lives. The author chose to ignore these concerns, which is why this language is included in the repeal we discuss today -- and rightly so, in our oh-so-non-biased and purely objective assessment.

It is also well known that the Hirotans are tree-hugging commies.The Hirotans may be many things, Ambassador, but "tree-hugging commies" they aren't.

There was some discussion on the proposal's language modifying the right to strike only in situations where civilian lives are "directly" threatened, omitting potentially harmful scenarios where mass strikes could affect public health, safety or civil order, or even indirectly endanger civilian lives. The author chose to ignore these concerns, which is why this language is included in the repeal we discuss today -- and rightly so, in our oh-so-non-biased and purely objective assessment.

The Hirotans may be many things, Ambassador, but "tree-hugging commies" they aren't.

Please excuse my advisor's colorful verbiage. He was caught in the heat of the moment and exaggerated.

Needless to say, a cooler head has returned to the embassy.

Most courteously,

Furthermore, everyone needs to read the repeal and resolution carefully.

We did. Frankly, the lack of accuracy in the repeal's representation of the resolution is offensive.

We did. Frankly, the lack of accuracy in the repeal's representation of the resolution is offensive.I'm sick of this knee-jerk hysteria. What precisely is inaccurate about this repeal?

...such overblown rhetoric, misrepresentation, and Chicken Little-style alarmism...

...give it a fucking rest...

...combination of exaggeration and irrelevancy are quite breathtaking in their deviousness...

....we have seen some alarmist repeal proposals...this one really takes the biscuit...

I entirely fail to see the logic behind the assumption that the fact that something is alarming causes it not to be true. Furthermore, the faults of "The Right to Form Unions" are protrayed in the repeal accurately, with the degree of urgency that they require.

As distinct from the similar action based on the same principle taken by the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny, which merely happens to be in favour of the proposal rather than against? We invite Ambassador Pro Tempore Erman to demonstrate that he is not holding a double standard here.Pssst, I'll tell you a secret. Double standards are rife. I'm guilty of hypocrisy at one time or another, so is everyone else.

Kenny is quite correct, we don't hug trees.

Still, as was requested, we shall post a more complete objection now we have the luxury of time.

OOC: Real life old boy. Sometimes it takes priority AA.

HOWEVER REGRETTING that this resolution, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws,Abysmal? Really?creates a system that neither appropriately protects workers nor strikes a proper balance between worker protection and national security,Define security. Do you mean national defence? namely in that it:

1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety,How so?law and order,The obvious implication is police personnel – but they are exempted from striking, so I assume you must mean someone else?and public well being,Well being? Who?or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;How?

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;You know, your own laws could legislate on this – just because this does not legislate does not means nations cannot.

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups,Yes there is – look up the word independent ( http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=independent). thus implementing on an international scale a bias-prone system for an issue that could be better managed, due to the complexity of union-employer relations, on a national scale;Unions can be international in scope with the existing legislation, so that’s failing to recognise that.4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule,Hang on, why is “work-to-rule” automatically industrial action?and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;You mean, for example terrorist organisations?5- DENIES member nations the necessary ability to temporarily suspend or modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial actionThey don’t have the right in the first place according to the original legislation
THEREFORE CONCLUDING(incorrectly)that the resolution in question not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities,Incorrect.but further that it in no way guarantees the fair and just protections of union workers,How do you reason this?NOTING that the repeal of this flawed legislation shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions,Unless nations decide to disband thembut will instead empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,And you’ve given those nations a good excuse too.Authored by the members of ACCELI’m hardly the only one to have objections to this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518289

Abysmal? Really?
Yes.
Define security. Do you mean national defence?
It's a repeal preamble. It doesn't need to include definitions...though it spells out what it means anyway later on. Ping-pong fails again.
How so?
By, er, granting blanket permission to strikes that are hazardous to health and safety. If you'd bothered to read the original resolution, you'd have noticed that considerations of health and safety aren't listed as reasons for restricting for a right to strike. And if you really dig deep, I'm sure even you can make the logical leap.
The obvious implication is police personnel – but they are exempted from striking, so I assume you must mean someone else?
Yes. That disruption to law and order isn't permitted as a reason for restricting a strike, even where that disruption involves destruction of property and endangerment of life.
Well being? Who?
I don't even know what this means. But then, if you go through a proposal trying to quote box out every word, just to back up your ridiculous and pathetic delusions, you're bound to come out with some pretty inane crap.
How?
Once more, reading the original resolution is always a big help when critiquing a repeal. You should try it some time. If a strike indirectly endangers life, it must be permitted to proceed.
You know, your own laws could legislate on this – just because this does not legislate does not means nations cannot.
No, they couldn't. You've completely missed the point. Clause 1 of "The Right to Form Unions" gives workers the right to join Unions. That means they can join other unions if their own ones vote not to strike, and thereby circumvent any attempt to democratise labour representation; and Clause 8 (yet again, reading so so good) prohibits national laws from restricting these guarantees.
Yes there is – look up the word independent (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=independent).
Although I agree this repeal argument is total shit, I would note that independent is not an exact corollary to unbiased. One can be free of any particular pressure, but still express a particular preference. A better word for Resolution #149 to have used might have been 'neutral'.
Unions can be international in scope with the existing legislation, so that’s failing to recognise that.
I have no idea what that clause of the repeal means, which probably also explains the unintelligibility of your response. But I think you've missed the point, again; where it refers to 'international', it means the legislation, not the union.
Hang on, why is “work-to-rule” automatically industrial action?
This is referring to work-to-rule in that context. So, I guess, if you want, it's not - but then, the repeal doesn't say that it is, so it's a fairly meaningless exchange on all counts.
You mean, for example terrorist organisations?
No, they mean for example a union that uses the training and equipment of its military members to effect particularly aggressive industrial action - all legal under this resolution.
They don’t have the right in the first place according to the original legislation
Yes, they do. They just don't have the right to strike, but they have the right to engage in other forms of industrial action. As the previous clause just stated...with such a comprehensive rebuttal to it, I can't see how you missed that one. While I remember, read (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=148).
(incorrectly)
Ooh, burn! Damn, they felt that one alright.
Incorrect.
I see. So endangering people's lives isn't dangerous and irresponsible. Interesting line.
How do you reason this?
I'm assuming it's, for example, that the composition of international union confederations could mean national unions are unevenly represented, and hence do not actually represent the true interests of their particular labour force.
Unless nations decide to disband them
No shit.
And you’ve given those nations a good excuse too
Don't know what this means, but I hardly think nations need an 'excuse' to prevent abuses. Or did you forget what the words said half a sentence on? I know, it can be tricky sometimes.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

...such overblown rhetoric, misrepresentation, and Chicken Little-style alarmism...

...give it a fucking rest...


First of all, keep a civil tongue in your head when you talk to us. Save your foul language for those who are impressed by it.

Whether the proposal contains overblown rhetoric is a judgment call. We've made ours. "[S}eries of abysmal legislative flaws" comes to mind.

You want an example of misrepresentation? We quote your clause 4:

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;

The resolution clearly does not do that. It covers strikes, and prohibits "personnel of the armed forces" from engaging in them. It does not prohibit nations from preventing other types of industrial action by the military.

Want another one? You characterize binding arbitration as "a bias-prone system". There is no justification for labelling this commonly used system as "bias-prone". Can arbitration be biased? Certainly. But it is by no means prone to bias. Your contention is completely unsupported by the history of labor relations.

How about a third one? You state that the resolution "provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities". Nonsense. You may believe that it requires nations to allow them. But it mandates them? No.

As for your Chicken Little alarmism, we'll just refer back to your clause 4, and its pronouncement that the resolution poses "a critical threat to national security". Nonsense.

We opposed the original resolution based on the grounds that you quite accurately cited in the first clause of your repeal. We would support a reasonable repeal proposal. We won't support this one.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

give it a fucking rest

That's a quote...

As for your Chicken Little alarmism, we'll just refer back to your clause 4, and its pronouncement that the resolution poses "a critical threat to national security". Nonsense.

The Right to Form Unions allow the military to join "unions that uses the training and equipment of its military members to effect particularly aggressive industrial action - all legal under this resolution." That was an exact quote from QoD's post. Please read the previous posts before you post.

Want another one? You characterize binding arbitration as "a bias-prone system". There is no justification for labelling this commonly used system as "bias-prone". Can arbitration be biased? Certainly. But it is by no means prone to bias. Your contention is completely unsupported by the history of labor relations.

Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/01/MN73462.DTL) is an example about the debate that arises when 'independent' arbitration is used with the consent of the employee beforehand. The reason I present this is to provide evidence that there is considerable debate about whether independent arbitration is fair and valid, whether it is a better method than dispute resolution in court, ex cetera.

Although I agree employers have every right to include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts (as potential workers are not forced to be employed by a certain employer), forcing mandatory independent arbitration to be the universal method of resolution in these conflicts even when employees did not agree to this method in the first place is completely against workers rights and the concept of justice. When there is considerable debate about the validity of arbitration with pre-approval, should mandatory arbitration without pre-approval be forced upon all workers throughout the UN, thus eliminating court resolutions of employment disputes which are sometimes required in order to obtain a fair decision? Might we need to consider the ties between frequent wealthy customers and arbitrators, possibly decide the best form of resolution on a nation by nation or case by case basis?

I'm sick of this knee-jerk hysteria. What precisely is inaccurate about this repeal?
Almost the entirety of it. On the assumption that the theoretically honoured representative requires details, let us run through the proposal piece by piece.

ASSERTING the rights of workers to form unions and the importance of fair wages,

APPLAUDING the honorable intention of UN Resolution #149 "The Right to Form Unions" to provide protection for all workers in member nations,
We have no issue with these statements, and will not comment on their presumed sincerity.

HOWEVER REGRETTING that this resolution, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws, creates a system that neither appropriately protects workers nor strikes a proper balance between worker protection and national security, namely in that it:

1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;
Taking this position requires a somewhat twisted understanding of the resolution, as best we can see. Let us take these assertions one at a time.
Strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety
This is a difficult point to quantise. Strikes which are directly hazardous to public health are not a given right, so clearly that cannot be what is meant by this point. Quite what that leaves us with is unclear. Our best effort at understanding is to suggest that it is aimed at strikes which leave some indirect threat to public health, such as a refusal to do maintenance work. The correct response of an employer in such a circumstance (leastways an employer who does not wish to be sued for unsafe practices) is to shut down the affected service, building or whatsoever it may be if they believe that there is a danger to users. This then would be an attempt to shift to the union a responsibility of the employer, and as such should be resisted.
Strikes that are severely hazardous to law and order
Again, the resolution clearly exempts both armed forces and police forces from the right to strike, the latter once again on the grounds of public safety. If we understand the system correctly, certain categories of prison officer would be argued to be exempt for the same reason, the danger to the public of their charges, that we in Gobbannium exempt certain sets of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses. Beyond that, we are at a loss to understand what a hazard to law and order consists of that is not covered by the above.
Strikes that are severely hazardous to public well being
Once again, the resolution exempts medical personnel from the right to strike, which is the most obvious application of this phrase. We can just about conceive of a strike leaving an industrial plant in a state whereby its operation would be grievously polluting to the local environment and citizenry, but again it is the choice of the employer to attempt to operate the plant in that state. As with the first point, this would be an attempt to shift responsibility if it is the reasoning behind the statement, and as such is clearly to be deprecated.
Strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives
Here at last is a valid point. We would observe that much of the above argument applies, though; there is a fine line between a union working in a dangerous environment refusing to carry out certain work and an employer in the same environment recklessly pressing on.


2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;
Clause 6 of the resolution explicitly states that nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions. This allows nations to pass legislation that quite adequately covers this point, whilst leaving the unions still free from choking levels of governmental interference. The resolution should perhaps have been more carefully written in this regard, but that is true of almost all resolutions passed by this august body, and it in no way validates the claim of this assertion.

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups, thus implementing on an international scale a bias-prone system for an issue that could be better managed, due to the complexity of union-employer relations, on a national scale;
The proposer moves from 'independent arbitration' to 'a bias-prone system' with no logic in between. One would have hoped that the definition of 'independent' included 'unbiased' somewhere within it, or that it would not be beyond the wit of nations deeply concerned about such things to include it.

We would observe that most cases of accusation of bias in independent arbitration, from both sides of the industrial fence, come from those who have lost their case. In such cases where we have been in the position of an impartial observer, we have almost invariably agreed with the arbitrators. As such, we must reject this assertion utterly.

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;
This is untrue. First, military personnel are not granted the right to strike. Second, other industrial action is not mentioned in the resolution, and is therefore a matter for national law. The resolution therefore neither permits nor forbids such action.

The matter of "joining violent international federations" is emotive rubbish. First, the right to federate is one granted to unions, not their members. Second, one must needs be careful in using the word 'violent' in association with the armed forces, lest one find oneself legislating that one's army must not do anything so provocative as carry arms when on duty. Third, the clear critical threat to national security mentioned is not one bit clear even if we grant the previous inaccuracies; membership of a group which, for the sake of argument, the entire UN agrees is violent does not mean that one is or will be uncontrolledly violent. Indeed we can see many occasions on which this would be of benefit, such as cooperation between the armies of one or more nations.

5- DENIES member nations the necessary ability to temporarily suspend or modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action in order to promote security and continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption, or war;
But, as has been pointed out several times already in this post alone, emergency services personnel are already exempted from the right to strike, and the resolution is silent on their rights or lack thereof in terms of other industrial action. This point is therefore incorrect.

THEREFORE CONCLUDING that the resolution in question not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities, but further that it in no way guarantees the fair and just protections of union workers,
The argument has manifestly failed to prove that such a mandate exists, or that it is unfair or unjust in its provisions for union workers. Indeed, its persistent attempts to raise distorted or simply wrong understandings of the resolution make it appear a collection of utterly hysterical whingings. How can we be expected to take the conclusions seriously, when the arguments are so badly flawed?

That's a quote...

We don't care whether it was a quote or not. It was insulting and abusive and written over your signature.

The Right to Form Unions allow the military to join "unions that uses the training and equipment of its military members to effect particularly aggressive industrial action - all legal under this resolution." That was an exact quote from QoD's post. Please read the previous posts before you post.

We read the post by the honorable representative of Quintessence of Dust before we posted our reponse to yours. We weren't aware that we were obliged to always agree with our friend and colleague from that nation. The resolution gives the military no specific rights other than to unionize and to have that union join international federations. It does not entitle them to do anything else that might be prohibited by the laws of my nation. For example, the military personnel of our nation can join an international association of unions that advocates disobedience of orders. If they disobey orders, they'll face courts-martial. It's as simple as that.

Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/01/MN73462.DTL) is an example about the debate that arises when 'independent' arbitration is used with the consent of the employee beforehand. The reason I present this is to provide evidence that there is considerable debate about whether independent arbitration is fair and valid, whether it is a better method than dispute resolution in court, ex cetera.

Although I agree employers have every right to include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts (as potential workers are not forced to be employed by a certain employer), forcing mandatory independent arbitration to be the universal method of resolution in these conflicts even when employees did not agree to this method in the first place is completely against workers rights and the concept of justice. When there is considerable debate about the validity of arbitration with pre-approval, should mandatory arbitration without pre-approval be forced upon all workers throughout the UN, thus eliminating court resolutions of employment disputes which are sometimes required in order to obtain a fair decision? Might we need to consider the ties between frequent wealthy customers and arbitrators, possibly decide the best form of resolution on a nation by nation or case by case basis?

There is debate about the propriety of government-required binding arbitration. Fine. That does nothing to support your completely unfounded statement that such arbitration is "bias-prone". What "ties between frequent wealthy customers and arbitrators"?

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I am sure that I am not alone in tiring of repeals presented by the group ACCEL that present wanton untruths as fact and dress up their reactionary agenda with facile acknowledgements of the 'good intentions' behind the legislation they seek to tear up.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the resolution under scrutiny, I see no possibility of the New Cultural Revolution supporting any ACCEL-sponsored resolution or repeal for the foreseeable future. Only when this organisation learns to legislate sincerely and without duplicity will its measures stand a chance of receiving our support. I suspect this pronouncement will cause not one jot of consternation in its ranks. So be it.

I will, however, offer some defence of the ambassador from David6; he was indeed quoting another - namely, myself - rather than directly insulting the Ausserland delegation. I offer unreserved apologies for my role in this unfortunate episode.

Benedictions,

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the resolution under scrutiny, I see no possibility of the New Cultural Revolution supporting any ACCEL-sponsored resolution or repeal for the foreseeable future. Only when this organisation learns to legislate sincerely and without duplicity will its measures stand a chance of receiving our support. I suspect this pronouncement will cause not one jot of consternation in its ranks. So be it.That sums up Hirota's position far more accurately than I could have expressed it at the moment.

OOC: Headache.

ASSERTING the rights of workers to form unions and the importance of fair wages,

APPLAUDING the honorable intention of UN Resolution #149 "The Right to Form Unions" to provide protection for all workers in member nations,

We have no issue with these statements, and will not comment on their presumed sincerity.

We have reached a low point when we decide to use such tactics to 'discuss' a proposal.

HOWEVER REGRETTING that this resolution, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws, creates a system that neither appropriately protects workers nor strikes a proper balance between worker protection and national security, namely in that it:

1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;
Taking this position requires a somewhat twisted understanding of the resolution, as best we can see. Let us take these assertions one at a time.

* Strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety
This is a difficult point to quantise. Strikes which are directly hazardous to public health are not a given right, so clearly that cannot be what is meant by this point.

This argument is entirely contradicts the text of the resolution.

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

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

...

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

The resolution clearly states that all workers in all UN member nations may go on strike, except those in the armed forces, those strikes not authorized by a unions, and strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation. This is exactly what the point is referring to. Strikes which are directly hazardous to public health are a given right under "The Right to Form Unions", provided that the don't directly endanger the lives of citizens.

Quite what that leaves us with is unclear. Our best effort at understanding is to suggest that it is aimed at strikes which leave some indirect threat to public health, such as a refusal to do maintenance work. The correct response of an employer in such a circumstance (leastways an employer who does not wish to be sued for unsafe practices) is to shut down the affected service, building or whatsoever it may be if they believe that there is a danger to users. This then would be an attempt to shift to the union a responsibility of the employer, and as such should be resisted.

That is not even close to what the repeal states. The repeal states that The 'Right to Form Unions' "grants blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety." A refusal to do maintinence work certainly does not fall under this category.

* Strikes that are severely hazardous to law and order
Again, the resolution clearly exempts both armed forces and police forces from the right to strike, the latter once again on the grounds of public safety. If we understand the system correctly, certain categories of prison officer would be argued to be exempt for the same reason, the danger to the public of their charges, that we in Gobbannium exempt certain sets of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses. Beyond that, we are at a loss to understand what a hazard to law and order consists of that is not covered by the above.

Gobbannium cannot exempt prison officers and certain sets of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses under "The Right to Form Unions." These are very valid examples of the faults of this resolution. The only strikes which are not exempted from international legality are those not authorized by a unions, strikes by personnel of the armed forces, and strikes which directly endanger civilian lives; all other strikes are legal. Since a strike of psychiatrists, prison officers, and psychiatric nurses would indirectly, not directly, endanger civilian lives, they would be legal under this resolution. Giving examples of the specific problems of "The Right to Form Unions" and then claiming there are no others first untrue and second not a valid argument against this repeal.

* Strikes that are severely hazardous to public well being
Once again, the resolution exempts medical personnel from the right to strike, which is the most obvious application of this phrase. We can just about conceive of a strike leaving an industrial plant in a state whereby its operation would be grievously polluting to the local environment and citizenry, but again it is the choice of the employer to attempt to operate the plant in that state. As with the first point, this would be an attempt to shift responsibility if it is the reasoning behind the statement, and as such is clearly to be deprecated.

Although the president of David6 doesn't quite understand what point that paragraph is designed to make, strikes that are severely hazardous to public well being are those such as industry wide strikes against power companies, as these would cause blackouts and thus basically a complete interruption of the nation's normal operation, significantly increase crime at night, severely but indirectly endanger the lives of thousands in hospitals, greatly impair the ability of hospitals to insure public health, and overwhelm the police force while impeding their ability to operate. In that case, industrial plant strikes would be in this category, but in most cases, they certainly are not.

* Strikes that indirectly endanger civilian lives
Here at last is a valid point. We would observe that much of the above argument applies, though; there is a fine line between a union working in a dangerous environment refusing to carry out certain work and an employer in the same environment recklessly pressing on.

The above argument to which Gobbannium is referring does not apply here, nor does it apply above. Not only is this a valid point, it is an especially important one. Strikes by workers such as those in power companies indirectly endanger civilian lives for the reasons stated in our above paragraph, yet they are entirely legal under "The Right to Form Unions." No nation may put limits on this, due to the second half of clause 8, which states that "national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution."

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs; nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions,

...

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.

Clause 6 of the resolution explicitly states that nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions. This allows nations to pass legislation that quite adequately covers this point, whilst leaving the unions still free from choking levels of governmental interference. The resolution should perhaps have been more carefully written in this regard, but that is true of almost all resolutions passed by this august body, and it in no way validates the claim of this assertion.

Clause 6 does explicitly state that nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards. Multiple membership and union size, however, are not minimum democratic standards. It is, however, under the category of creating their constitutions and rules, which clause 6 states must be left up to unions and not national governments. In addition, clause 8 fully prevents nations from writing legislation on this topic.

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups, thus implementing on an international scale a bias-prone system for an issue that could be better managed, due to the complexity of union-employer relations, on a national scale;

The proposer moves from 'independent arbitration' to 'a bias-prone system' with no logic in between. One would have hoped that the definition of 'independent' included 'unbiased' somewhere within it, or that it would not be beyond the wit of nations deeply concerned about such things to include it.
Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/01/MN73462.DTL) is an example about the debate that arises when 'independent' arbitration is used with the consent of the employee beforehand. The reason I present this is to provide evidence that there is considerable debate about whether independent arbitration is fair and valid, whether it is a better method than dispute resolution in court, ex cetera.

Although I agree employers have every right to include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts (as potential workers are not forced to be employed by a certain employer), forcing mandatory independent arbitration to be the universal method of resolution in these conflicts even when employees did not agree to this method in the first place is completely against workers rights and the concept of justice. When there is considerable debate about the validity of arbitration with pre-approval, should mandatory arbitration without pre-approval be forced upon all workers throughout the UN, thus eliminating court resolutions of employment disputes which are sometimes required in order to obtain a fair decision? Might we need to consider the ties between frequent wealthy customers and arbitrators, possibly decide the best form of resolution on a nation by nation or case by case basis?

We would observe that most cases of accusation of bias in independent arbitration, from both sides of the industrial fence, come from those who have lost their case. In such cases where we have been in the position of an impartial observer, we have almost invariably agreed with the arbitrators. As such, we must reject this assertion utterly.

Most certainly, the accusation comes from the side that lost. If a system is biased against someone, they are obviously more likely to lose. That is certainly a valid observation, but it is not a valid argument for the impartiality of independent arbitration systems; rather it is a statement about personal interpretation of the history of law and arbitration.

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;

and

5- DENIES member nations the necessary ability to temporarily suspend or modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action in order to promote security and continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption, or war;

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

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

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;
This is untrue. First, military personnel are not granted the right to strike. Second, other industrial action is not mentioned in the resolution, and is therefore a matter for national law. The resolution therefore neither permits nor forbids such action.

...

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.[/quote]

The matter of "joining violent international federations" is emotive rubbish. First, the right to federate is one granted to unions, not their members.

Clause 1 explicitly states that member nations must recognize "the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally." The military can unionize, and then join international organizations that donate money and weapons to violent causes. This is a dangerous threat.

Second, one must needs be careful in using the word 'violent' in association with the armed forces, lest one find oneself legislating that one's army must not do anything so provocative as carry arms when on duty.

I have no response to this, as it is entirely unrelated to this repeal.

Third, the clear critical threat to national security mentioned is not one bit clear even if we grant the previous inaccuracies; membership of a group which, for the sake of argument, the entire UN agrees is violent does not mean that one is or will be uncontrolledly violent. Indeed we can see many occasions on which this would be of benefit, such as cooperation between the armies of one or more nations.

Of course it will not cause the members of the military to become controllably violent. It does allow members of the military to legally fund terrorism and aid enemies, provided they do so through organizations which they refer to as unions.

But, as has been pointed out several times already in this post alone, emergency services personnel are already exempted from the right to strike, and the resolution is silent on their rights or lack thereof in terms of other industrial action. This point is therefore incorrect.

Point 5 refers to industrial action such as work-slow and work-to-rule, not to strikes. The Right to Form Unions does prevent nations from passing laws concerning this, due to the combination of clause 8 and clause 1.

We ask all member nations to carefully read the resolution, the repeal, Gobbanium's reply to the repeal, and this defense of the repeal, and to determine where the discrepancy truly lies.

We have reached a low point when we decide to use such tactics to 'discuss' a proposal.So what, ACCEL is not trusted. Didn't you already know that?The resolution clearly states that all workers in all UN member nations may go on strike, except those in the armed forces, those strikes not authorized by a unions, and strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation. This is exactly what the point is referring to. Strikes which are directly hazardous to public health are a given right under "The Right to Form Unions", provided that the don't directly endanger the lives of citizens. For a start you fail to consider that nations can easily legislate on health and safety in their own right, and it's not this resolutions failure if nations have not done so - in effect people could strike all they want, but if legislation was in place in your state to punish those responsible for harm as a result of leaving hazards then it's their look out. Still, I'd argue that the employer would be just as liable for legislation against them if it was found it was negligence on their part, or of the employee. Indeed, if something was found hazardous, then there is nothing stopping companies punishing employees if they were found to be leaving hazards, irrespective of striking or not.Gobbannium cannot exempt prison officers Yes they can - if they are police staff.and certain sets of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses under "The Right to Form Unions."Yes they can - if their strike can endanger citizens of the nation - for example many psychiatric patients (such as those with a long history of self abuse or suicide, or those with a record of harming others).These are very valid examples of the faults of this resolution.No, they are valid examples of your failure of understanding.[quote]Since a strike of psychiatrists, prison officers, and psychiatric nurses would indirectly, not directly, endanger civilian lives, they would be legal under this resolution.Wrong.

More later, maybe.We ask all member nations to carefully read the resolution, the repeal, Gobbanium's reply to the repeal, and this defense of the repeal, and to determine where the discrepancy truly lies.Now you do the same.

We have reached a low point when we decide to use such tactics to 'discuss' a proposal.
We can assure the honoured representative that we can go much lower than basic politeness.

* Strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety
This is a difficult point to quantise. Strikes which are directly hazardous to public health are not a given right, so clearly that cannot be what is meant by this point.
The resolution clearly states that all workers in all UN member nations may go on strike, except those in the armed forces, those strikes not authorized by a unions, and strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation. This is exactly what the point is referring to. Strikes which are directly hazardous to public health are a given right under "The Right to Form Unions", provided that the don't directly endanger the lives of citizens.
We apologise for our lax use of terminology, which is nigh unforgivable in such a debate. In turn we would like to thank the honoured representative for clarifying that what he meant by the term "health and safety" was approximately what we guessed him to mean, as distinct from what the term is normally taken to mean.

To be even handed, we must point out that the phrase "directly endanger the life of citizens" cannot mean what you quite reasonably assert it means, given the clarifying comments in the text of the resolution. If only medical professionals were exempted, then your argument could well be made. Given that policing professionals are also included, it does not hold. Police do not spend their every waking minute preventing direct threats to the lives of citizens. Indeed, they spend very few minutes doing so in any given year, popular televisual entertainments notwithstanding. It follows therefore that we must be talking about dangers in a fairly generalised sense, and that "directly" is not nearly as direct as it might seem.

Thus it follows (in our subsequent argument) that those officers of whatever nature who guard and care for murderers and other violent prisoners are in exactly the same position of public guardianship as the police. As such, they too must fall into the exemption, as must any others whose strikes would cause a clear and present danger to come into being.

Yes, this is poor drafting on the part of the resolution. The examples however make the intent of the resolution clear, and that intent is directly counter to your assertion.

That is not even close to what the repeal states. The repeal states that The 'Right to Form Unions' "grants blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety." A refusal to do maintinence work certainly does not fall under this category.
We note in passing that unperformed maintenance would most certainly fall under the purview of our national Health and Safety legislation. I believe however that this is irrelevant given our other collective iterations towards common understanding.

Although the president of David6 doesn't quite understand what point that paragraph is designed to make, strikes that are severely hazardous to public well being are those such as industry wide strikes against power companies, as these would cause blackouts and thus basically a complete interruption of the nation's normal operation, significantly increase crime at night, severely but indirectly endanger the lives of thousands in hospitals, greatly impair the ability of hospitals to insure public health, and overwhelm the police force while impeding their ability to operate. In that case, industrial plant strikes would be in this category, but in most cases, they certainly are not.
Here we must simply agree to differ, something that would be considerably easier had the case for the repeal been made in rational tones. Even were the Ambassador's hysterical predictions to come true, something we consider highly unlikely, this is an example of a right to strike that we believe must be protected, and that you believe must be suppressed.

The above argument does not apply here, nor does it apply above. Not only is this a valid point, it is an especially important one. Strikes by workers such as those in power companies indirectly endanger civilian lives for the reasons stated in our above paragraph, yet they are entirely legal under "The Right to Form Unions." No nation may put limits on this, due to the second half of clause 8, which states that "national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution."
Indeed. This is a point on which we unreserved applaud the "Right to Form Unions" resolution. We suspect it was exactly the intent of the argument of direct vs indirect endangerment to allow such strikes while forbidding those that are a direct deliquency of guardianship.

Clause 6 does explicitly state that nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards. Multiple membership and union size, however, are not minimum democratic standards. It is, however, under the category of creating their constitutions and rules, which clause 6 states must be left up to unions and not national governments. In addition, clause 8 fully prevents nations from writing legislation on this topic.
Multiple membership is indeed not a democratic standard, though we do not understand the problem the honoured ambassador has with it. Union size, however, does within limits present democratic issues. A union of one is not a democratic organisation. We (and the resolution) do not presume to tell other nations where they should start recognising democracy.

(OOC: this is actually quite real. My local council has rules about making officer time available to councillors of all political groups, for which purpose one person is not considered a group. This has mattered for two of the last eight or so years!)

Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/01/MN73462.DTL) is an example about the debate that arises when 'independent' arbitration is used with the consent of the employee beforehand. The reason I present this is to provide evidence that there is considerable debate about whether independent arbitration is fair and valid, whether it is a better method than dispute resolution in court, ex cetera.

Although I agree employers have every right to include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts (as potential workers are not forced to be employed by a certain employer), forcing mandatory independent arbitration to be the universal method of resolution in these conflicts even when employees did not agree to this method in the first place is completely against workers rights and the concept of justice. When there is considerable debate about the validity of arbitration with pre-approval, should mandatory arbitration without pre-approval be forced upon all workers throughout the UN, thus eliminating court resolutions of employment disputes which are sometimes required in order to obtain a fair decision? Might we need to consider the ties between frequent wealthy customers and arbitrators, possibly decide the best form of resolution on a nation by nation or case by case basis?
The honoured ambassador appears rather stuck upon a single definition of 'independent arbitration' here. The fictional example he cites, which doubtless has parallels in at least one nation within this chamber, applies to but one possibility. As long as the arbitrators are independent of both parties in the dispute, which would incidentally dispose of his last point, the resolution contains no provision that prevents that means of arbitration being via the courts. Nations may choose to legislate so, since clause 8 will not prevent them from doing this. Clearly this becomes difficult in those majority of cases where exempted workers are employed by the government, and impossible in such cases where the judiciary is not independent of the government. We hope that the Ambassador would agree that it would be the court-based solution that would be inherently biased in that case.

Most certainly, the accusation comes from the side that lost. If a system is biased against someone, they are obviously more likely to lose. That is certainly a valid observation, but it is not a valid argument for the impartiality of independent arbitration systems; rather it is a statement about personal interpretation of the history of law and arbitration.
Under the circumstances we feel it entirely appropriate to raise our personal interpretation to counter your personal interpretation, observing thereby that it can carry no weight in favour of the repeal.

This is untrue. First, military personnel are not granted the right to strike. Second, other industrial action is not mentioned in the resolution, and is therefore a matter for national law. The resolution therefore neither permits nor forbids such action.
8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
As we have pointed out, the resolution makes no mention of means of industrial action other than striking. Clause 8 therefore does not forbid any form of national law on the subject.

Clause 1 explicitly states that member nations must recognize "the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally." The military can unionize, and then join international organizations that donate money and weapons to violent causes. This is a dangerous threat.
Quite right. We cannot possibly permit members of the military to club together to buy a dangerous organisation such as themselves a piece of superior repair equipment, for example.

For the avoidance of doubt, that was sarcasm. If the honoured representative is seriously concerned about the donation of money and weapons to violent causes, perhaps he should draft some legislation on the subject. We are not, nor do we believe that this is in any way, shape or form the dangerous threat that he presents. Members of such federated organisations are still not permitted to act in an unlawful manner, after all.

Point 5 refers to industrial action such as work-slow and work-to-rule, not to strikes. The Right to Form Unions does prevent nations from passing laws concerning this, due to the combination of clause 8 and clause 1.

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

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.
No. The argument is specious. Working to rule and the like are not mentioned in the resolution at all, and are therefore not guarantees given by it. Clause 8 cannot apply to them.

We ask all member nations to carefully read the resolution, the repeal, Gobbanium's reply to the repeal, and this defense of the repeal, and to determine where the discrepancy truly lies.
With that we can wholeheartedly agree.

I don't have time today to respond to your argument. I am going to clarify one thing now though:

Here we must simply agree to differ, something that would be considerably easier had the case for the repeal been made in rational tones. Even were the Ambassador's hysterical predictions to come true, something we consider highly unlikely, this is an example of a right to strike that we believe must be protected, and that you believe must be suppressed.

I'm not saying we should surppess this, but we should rather leave it up to individual nations.

By the way, thank you for making this argument more civilized.

So what, ACCEL is not trusted. Didn't you already know that?

The trustworthiness of the authoring group should not come into play. They are not promising anything past what is already presented in the repeal. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply childish.

For a start you fail to consider that nations can easily legislate on health and safety in their own right, and it's not this resolutions failure if nations have not done so

From the resolution in question:

8. DECLARES .... that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

Legislation such as you suggest would run contrary to the above clause.

- in effect people could strike all they want, but if legislation was in place in your state to punish those responsible for harm as a result of leaving hazards then it's their look out.

The legislation you suggest would be illegal under clause 8 of the reso.

Still, I'd argue that the employer would be just as liable for legislation against them if it was found it was negligence on their part, or of the employee.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Indeed, if something was found hazardous, then there is nothing stopping companies punishing employees if they were found to be leaving hazards, irrespective of striking or not.

Agreed. Still completely irrelevant.

Yes they can - if they are police staff.

Not showing up to the prison to work would not directly endanger the lives of anyone. Once the prisoners got out, there could be a direct threat to the populace if they are not reapprehended, but therein lies the step that makes in an indirect threat. The prisoners have to escape first. The fact that it is much more likely that they escape does not make the strike a direct threat.

Yes they can - if their strike can endanger citizens of the nation -

If their strike directly endangers people.

for example many psychiatric patients (such as those with a long history of self abuse or suicide, or those with a record of harming others).

Letting them run free would be a direct threat. Not talking to them to help them through their problems is not.

No, they are valid examples of your failure of understanding.

Considering that every argument you have thusfar put forth is based on the assumption that clause 8 of the resolution does not exist, I believe that the comprehension issue lies not with the author.

Wrong.

Yes, you are.

More later, maybe.Now you do the same.

We have, and find ourselves more fully in support of the repeal than we were before. It seems to really be bringing out the strawmen, and we love a good fire.

We can assure the honoured representative that we can go much lower than basic politeness.

Insinuations about their irrelevant sincerity levels do not qualify for "Polite".

To be even handed, we must point out that the phrase "directly endanger the life of citizens" cannot mean what you quite reasonably assert it means, given the clarifying comments in the text of the resolution.

This oughta be good.

If only medical professionals were exempted, then your argument could well be made. Given that policing professionals are also included, it does not hold.

How so?

Police do not spend their every waking minute preventing direct threats to the lives of citizens.

Nor do medical professionals. Your comparison is fallacious.

Indeed, they spend very few minutes doing so in any given year, popular televisual entertainments notwithstanding.

You should consider kicking your officers into gear if that is all the time they spend maintaining the peace in your nation.

It follows therefore that we must be talking about dangers in a fairly generalised sense, and that "directly" is not nearly as direct as it might seem.

Your argument is that direct means, instead, indirect. Fascinating. There are some windows over there. Perhaps you be more at home licking them instead of speaking.

Thus it follows (in our subsequent argument) that those officers of whatever nature who guard and care for murderers and other violent prisoners are in exactly the same position of public guardianship as the police.

Nope. Those who guard the prisons have bars and walls to back them up if they take a break for a few days or weeks. Should those walls fail, then there is a direct threat, but not before.

As such, they too must fall into the exemption, as must any others whose strikes would cause a clear and present danger to come into being.

Only if that cause is a direct one, which is not the case in your example.

Yes, this is poor drafting on the part of the resolution. The examples however make the intent of the resolution clear, and that intent is directly counter to your assertion.

Only if you choose to completely ignore the basic definitions of the language being used. What is put forth in the reso makes perfect logical sense, it simply fails to cover certain scenarios which would cause indirect threats.

We note in passing that unperformed maintenance would most certainly fall under the purview of our national Health and Safety legislation.

Which would have to be altered since a lack of maintenance will not always constitute a direct threat.

I believe however that this is irrelevant given our other collective iterations towards common understanding.

Understanding which is obviously not so common, as it seems there are diverging opinions about how to read the english language.

Here we must simply agree to differ, something that would be considerably easier had the case for the repeal been made in rational tones. Even were the Ambassador's hysterical predictions to come true, something we consider highly unlikely, this is an example of a right to strike that we believe must be protected, and that you believe must be suppressed.

You are asserting that industries should be allowed to throw the entire nation into chaos. This does not need a response. The foolishness of that sentiment speaks for itself.

Indeed. This is a point on which we unreserved applaud the "Right to Form Unions" resolution. We suspect it was exactly the intent of the argument of direct vs indirect endangerment to allow such strikes while forbidding those that are a direct deliquency of guardianship.

Had the reso used language akin to "direct delinquency of guardianship", then perhaps we would not be having this debate. As it is, the reso does not, and does not do what you assert.

Multiple membership is indeed not a democratic standard, though we do not understand the problem the honoured ambassador has with it. Union size, however, does within limits present democratic issues. A union of one is not a democratic organisation. We (and the resolution) do not presume to tell other nations where they should start recognising democracy.

The issue is not that there will only be single members. It is that there could be a "union" of three people, just enough for some form of deciding voting capacity. These unions could go on strike over silly things and could not be punished for the waste of time and money that they have caused. It is also that there will be single individuals who maintain powerful positions within multiple unions, coordinating many large groups into devastating actions (or non actions as the case may be) to extort what they wish from the corporations or governments.

The honoured ambassador appears rather stuck upon a single definition of 'independent arbitration' here. The fictional example he cites, which doubtless has parallels in at least one nation within this chamber, applies to but one possibility.

If that is one possibility in a thousand, that still leaves a rather large issue that could be rabily abused. Such wounds of logic have no place in international legislation.

As long as the arbitrators are independent of both parties in the dispute, which would incidentally dispose of his last point, the resolution contains no provision that prevents that means of arbitration being via the courts.

Which still will not guarantee an unbiased result. But wait, there's more on this below.

Under the circumstances we feel it entirely appropriate to raise our personal interpretation to counter your personal interpretation, observing thereby that it can carry no weight in favour of the repeal.

Except that the interpretation offered by the author is based on sound logic, and your is based on belligerent naivete.

As we have pointed out, the resolution makes no mention of means of industrial action other than striking. Clause 8 therefore does not forbid any form of national law on the subject.

All the more reason for those groups to move to a full-blown strike. That's great logic.

Quite right. We cannot possibly permit members of the military to club together to buy a dangerous organisation such as themselves a piece of superior repair equipment, for example.

For the avoidance of doubt, that was sarcasm. If the honoured representative is seriously concerned about the donation of money and weapons to violent causes, perhaps he should draft some legislation on the subject. [/quote]

There is legislation on the subject. Unfortunately, this bill offers a back-door to those by mandating that nations cannot interfere with the non-violent actions of these groups. Last time I checked, it was readily possible to give money and weaponry to someone in a non-violent fashion.

We are not, nor do we believe that this is in any way, shape or form the dangerous threat that he presents. Members of such federated organisations are still not permitted to act in an unlawful manner, after all.

It is not the actual members of the federations within the UN that you must worry about. Some union enters into a federation with other unions from rogue nations. The UN union gives money or supplies of various natures to their counterparts in nations that are not held to UN law. These rogue unions now have the tools and moneys they need to mount an offensive against some third nation. UN laws have not been broken. War has been enabled as a result of this reso. Great job.

I'm not saying we should suppess this, (this would be legal in David6 because of economic liberty) but we should rather leave it up to individual nations.Absolutely not. This is a fundamental right which transcends petty national interest.

The trustworthiness of the authoring group should not come into play. They are not promising anything past what is already presented in the repeal.Shame what is presented in the repeal is so inaccurate then.
Legislation such as you suggest would run contrary to the above clause.And exactly how does introducing criminal negligence into national laws interfere with an individuals right to strike? Explain with more than just "you are wrong."Irrelevant to the matter at hand.No, it's not. It's not the employees who offer a service to a nation it's the employers, the company. Perhaps if they have decent incident management in place they would not suffer.Agreed. Still completely irrelevant.Glad you agree, but it's not irrelevant. Or, explain why it's irrelevant.Not showing up to the prison to work would not directly endanger the lives of anyone.Apart from other inmates. Still, you've not actually replied to the section you quoted.Letting them run free would be a direct threat. Not talking to them to help them through their problems is not.Never heard of the term suicide watch?Considering that every argument you have thusfar put forth is based on the assumption that clause 8 of the resolution does not exist, I believe that the comprehension issue lies not with the author.Based on the fact that you have to misquote and twist section 8 to try and justify your perspective, and based on the fact I can use the full section 8 to justify mine, I'd suggest "comprehension" is clearly not the issue with you either..

DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.Do you know why that bit was put in? Because it makes it clear that unions must respect national law and order.

Section 8 in it's final, resolution form was suggested by Gruenberg by the way.

Section 8 in it's [sic] final, resolution form was suggested by Gruenberg by the way.
So?

So?My point being that a lot of nations, respected nations (not just Groot, but you and many others) worked together to create a good proposal. That's apparently why you suggested section 8 in it's final format.

OOC: Yes, I've been reading the original topics. It's heavy work.

My point being that a lot of nations, respected nations (not just Groot, but you and many others) worked together to create a good proposal. That's apparently why you suggested section 8 in it's [sic] final format.
No, I suggested clause 8 in its final form to get St Edmund to stop his pathetic sneering about there being a loophole (which, had you actually been reading the original topics, I would have thought you would have known (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10396844&postcount=202)). I then argued and voted against it and tried to repeal it.

No, I suggested clause 8 in its final form to get St Edmund to stop his pathetic sneering about there being a loophole (which, had you actually been reading the original topics, I would have thought you would have known (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10396844&postcount=202)). I then argued and voted against it and tried to repeal it.Yes I saw that post in the drafting process.

So, then, you acknowledge that my suggested language for clause 8:
- was no reflection of what I thought of the overall proposal
- was no indication of how I might view a repeal
- is, overall, of absolutely no consequence whatsoever to these discussions?

(And I find it rather sad that you would so actively discourage people from contributing to the drafting of proposals they disagree with.)

I feel your suggested language for clause 8 made the proposal better. I don't care about how you felt about the proposal or any subsequent repeal.

Yours was just one example in that thread.

Absolutely not. This is a fundamental right which transcends petty national interest.

National interest in protecting their citizens is hardly petty.

Shame what is presented in the repeal is so inaccurate then.

You have yet to demonstrate these inaccuracies with any satisfaction.

And exactly how does introducing criminal negligence into national laws interfere with an individuals right to strike?

If these laws impair a union's capacity to strike...

No, it's not. It's not the employees who offer a service to a nation it's the employers, the company. Perhaps if they have decent incident management in place they would not suffer.Glad you agree, but it's not irrelevant.

It is irrelevant in that the employers are also free to form unions and strike. Trying to pass the blame on to them won't keep them from striking.

Apart from other inmates.

The guards are not causing the inmates to attack each other. Hence, they are not the direct cause of the threat.

Never heard of the term suicide watch?

That is but a single circumstance out of the thousands available.

Based on the fact that you have to misquote and twist section 8 to try and justify your perspective, and based on the fact I can use the full section 8 to justify mine, I'd suggest "comprehension" is clearly not the issue with you either..

How have I twisted it? Demonstrate using examples.

Do you know why that bit was put in? Because it makes it clear that unions must respect national law and order.

They must respect national law and order, but the nations cannot prevent them from striking. Nor can the nations prevent them from doing things that are not against the law, including, but not limited to, trading materials and supplies with international union cohorts.

Section 8 in it's final, resolution form was suggested by Gruenberg by the way.

This is me giving a damn who had a hand in drafting crap.

Why is it that the UN should be the ones to controll wether or not a country allows it's citizens to strike. Many of the countries are advanced and many are underdeveloped. This alone brings about different sets of priorities to each country. Specifying who can strike and who cannot can only lead to chaos in some countries where if a particular group is able to strike yes is extreemly vital to the welfare of the country then have we done them a service?

We should NOT be in controll of who can strike and who cannot. We should let the countries themselves decide if people can strike or not. We should also allow them to prioritize the elements of this issue as they see fit.

NatSov...Hooray!

In our judgment, it requires a fair amount of irony for the opponents of this repeal to offer up such utterly ridiculous wankery in order to twist the original article beyond all recognition, then call the repeal itself "inaccurate." Accompanied, of course, by cheap, predictable snipings about the associations of its authors. We'd urge all of you to give it a fucking rest, because it's beneath you, but given the reputation of some of this repeal's opponents, it so, so isn't.

~Cdr. Chiang

I concur with Cmdr. Chiang.

Prove to me that I should not be endorsing this proposal. Prove to me that this proposal does not misrepresent the original proposal. Prove to me that this should be deleted for making false arguments.

Because all that has been done is bitching about who wrote the proposal. The next time the UIC writes a proposal, I'll make sure to complain about the people that wrote it. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

As a representative of my Emperor, I am endorsing this proposal. We have always felt ill at ease with some of the provisions extant in the legislation, and this repeal gives us the chance to voice them. We are fully prepared, should this repeal be passed, to assist in drafting a replacement to better meet the goals desired by both ends of the spectrum.

Most courteously,

Prove to me that I should not be endorsing this proposal. Prove to me that this proposal does not misrepresent the original proposal. Prove to me that this should be deleted for making false arguments.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12355141&postcount=26

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild OPPOSES this proposal. The language used to construct the argument is the cheapest form of alarmist pettifoggery and plays up the very worst qualities of labour unions and organisations to get it's way. No responsible union member nor shop stewards above them would refuse to work during a legitimate state of emergency.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Amazing, Ausserland. Your argument is basically ripped apart and utterly distroyed, and to respond, you post a link to it. I'm thinking I should spend less time here and more on the off-site forums...

In our judgment, it requires a fair amount of irony for the opponents of this repeal to offer up such utterly ridiculous wankery in order to twist the original article beyond all recognition, then call the repeal itself "inaccurate." Accompanied, of course, by cheap, predictable snipings about the associations of its authors. We'd urge all of you to give it a fucking rest, because it's beneath you, but given the reputation of some of this repeal's opponents, it so, so isn't.
We would be interested in seeing your justification of a single one of those remarks as pertains to our arguments, commander. There being none, we sincerely advise that you desist from your attempts to prove to this relative newcomer that snipings you mention are entirely well-founded.

Prove to me that I should not be endorsing this proposal. Prove to me that this proposal does not misrepresent the original proposal. Prove to me that this should be deleted for making false arguments.
We have endeavoured to do exactly that. Has His Highness been otherwise detained while we were speaking?

There are not quite quiet enough mutterings of "No, you just send everyone to sleep," from the rest of the Gobbannium diplomatic contingent.

Amazing, Ausserland. Your argument is basically ripped apart and utterly distroyed, and to respond, you post a link to it.
Can I join in the contest to be as odiously snivelling as possible, oh please oh please? I don't think the level of ridiculous childishness is quite high enough yet.

I fail to see how his arguments have been utterly 'distroyed'. Maybe you could recap some of the main points of rebuttal.
I'm thinking I should spend less time here and more on the off-site forums...
I wholeheartedly agree.

I have to concur with the esteemed representative from Quintessence of Dust, here. Even though I currently stand on support of the repeal, I fail to see how every one of the points offered by the honourable Ausserland delegation has been torn asunder.

We apologise for the delay in responding to this post. It took us several readings to notice that that our argument was referred to in it, since the honoured Ambassador from Hirota's cogitations are addressed first.

The trustworthiness of the authoring group should not come into play. They are not promising anything past what is already presented in the repeal. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply childish.
Regrettably, the trustworthiness of the authoring group does come into play, particularly when the arguments in the repeal motion itself are presented in such an alarmist and, in our opinion, misleading manner. And if we, who have been active participants in this chamber for barely more than a month, can say with absolute honesty that we are having to work hard to suppress our instinctual reaction that the authors are, to be blunt, lying in order to serve their own betterment, then perhaps the authoring group should consider that there may be a problem with their collective public image. We do not have a history of distrust with the ACCEL group, but the dismissive attitude that has pervaded this and other debates is not one to encourage a trusting relationship.

Insinuations about their irrelevant sincerity levels do not qualify for "Polite".
When the sincerity levels are relevant, as has been expressed by many before, and we do not see any joy coming from their continued airing, then attempting to pointedly close that particular avenue of discussion cannot reasonably be classed as impolite. We regret that the honoured ambassador has chosen to reopen the topic, and refer him again to the problem of trust that it is distinctly not assisting.


Nor do medical professionals. Your comparison is fallacious.
It is not our comparison, but that of the resolution. Medical and policing professionals are the two entries in the non-exhaustive list of those exempted from the right to strike for reasons of direct endangerment of citizens. Our reason for stating that the repeal's argument could stand if only medical professionals were listed is that secondary care medical professionals (fundamentally those serving in hospitals) do spend an overwhelming amount of their working time with their patients lives in their hands, sometimes quite literally. This allows one to construct the admittedly slightly weak argument that "direct" really does mean direct. The presence of policing professionals in the list denies that argument, for reasons we will expand on later. The only sensible way to resolve the contradiction is then to assume that inadequate thought was given to this element in drafting, and that exemption must be intended to have a wider remit than the word "direct" would imply.

Now we think harder, there is an alternative reading, but one that we find hard to reconcile with the actual nature of policing. The intent could be that only those medical professionals who do deal with life-threatening conditions on a day-to-day basis are exempted from the right to strike. The problem with that assessment is that police officers cannot be so neatly divided, since they do not face life and death situations on a daily basis. We cannot convince ourselves that this is a reasonable interpretation.

If the honoured ambassador has a reading of the entire clause that does not wind itself into contradiction, we invite him to advance it.

You should consider kicking your officers into gear if that is all the time they spend maintaining the peace in your nation.
Maintaining the law is the duty of police officers; maintaining the peace is only a side-effect of certain elements of that duty. Our understanding is that the average officer is highly unlikely to have to deal with the prevention of murder, rape or anything more dangerous than drunken fisticuffs in the course of an average day's work.

[OOC: Can we take as read the five minute lecture on what police actually do, and how NS 'real life' policing bears approximately no resemblance to the excitement of the average cop show? I have to endure way too much of this in Real real life to ever want to inflict it on you lot.]

Your argument is that direct means, instead, indirect. Fascinating.
You misunderstand. Our argument is that the examples show that "direct" cannot mean as direct as the repeal is arguing it does. You err in asserting that this is a binary choice, in the same way that the resolution errs in failing to acknowledge that there are degrees of directness.

There are some windows over there. Perhaps you be more at home licking them instead of speaking.
We were unaware that these halls were underprovided with window cleaners, and will speak with the maintenance staff forthwith.

Nope. Those who guard the prisons have bars and walls to back them up if they take a break for a few days or weeks. Should those walls fail, then there is a direct threat, but not before.
A fascinating assertion which is only supported by evidence if one is feeling very confident. Such a questionable sense of security is one of the many reasons we in Gobbannium avoid the use of imprisonment.

Which would have to be altered since a lack of maintenance will not always constitute a direct threat.
We observed that it fell under that province, not that it was automatically illegal. We are not so mistrustful of the intent of industry as that!

Understanding which is obviously not so common, as it seems there are diverging opinions about how to read the english language.
Given the imprecision with which this chamber customarily wields its chosen language, rich and poor as it variously is, this can hardly be surprising.

You are asserting that industries should be allowed to throw the entire nation into chaos. This does not need a response. The foolishness of that sentiment speaks for itself.
This was not our assertion. If industries can be in such a position that they can throw an entire nation into chaos, then they present a clear and present danger to the government of that nation unless said government owns them. We suspect you would rather we pursued this line of reasoning no further.

The issue is not that there will only be single members. It is that there could be a "union" of three people, just enough for some form of deciding voting capacity. These unions could go on strike over silly things and could not be punished for the waste of time and money that they have caused. It is also that there will be single individuals who maintain powerful positions within multiple unions, coordinating many large groups into devastating actions (or non actions as the case may be) to extort what they wish from the corporations or governments.
Groups of almost any size can do remarkably stupid things, and regularly do so. [IwillnotmentionBushIwillnotmentionBushIwillnotmention... bugger] We find that these are self-correcting problems. People who abuse large groups for unreasonable purposes tend to become the agents of their own destruction, given that those groups are required to be minimally democratic and will find themselves facing economic consequences for their rash actions (or inactions as the case may be). People who use large groups for reasonable purposes... are being reasonable, and should be allowed to be.

We take it that the Ambassador does not believe with any great force that citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions as far as is humanly possible in a functioning society. If one does take that stand, as we do, then one must accept the consequence that people are allowed to make stupid and wrong decisions just as much as intelligent and correct ones.

A union of three in a workforce of ten may present a serious problem to an employer, it is true. Then again, arousing the ire of thirty percent of one's workforce is rarely a sensible approach to industrial relations, and in any case such a union, not unreasonably sized under the circumstances, would find that its actions in affecting the economic health of its company directly and obviously impacting on its own viability. A union of three in a workforce of a thousand would have rather less impact than trying to face down a dragon with a rolled up newspaper.

If that is one possibility in a thousand, that still leaves a rather large issue that could be rabily abused. Such wounds of logic have no place in international legislation.
Since the assertion in the repeal and in the subsequent justifications of it rely on that possibility being the only one, it is clearly a "wound of logic" to accept the argument.

Except that the interpretation offered by the author is based on sound logic, and your is based on belligerent naivete.
Now the honoured ambassador is just being silly. We have offered logic at every step, and all too often his counter arguments have been denigration and scorn rather than applied reason. We would appreciate it if he erred harder on the side of refutation rather than denial.

All the more reason for those groups to move to a full-blown strike. That's great logic.
This statement does assume that the national law in question makes such an encouragement, or at least cannot do otherwise if it attempts any degree of control. It also illuminates a deep and abiding mistrust of such groups, which if it is the case would explain the near hysteria with which contrary arguments are being treated. If this is the ambassador's honestly held opinion, we would not blame him for it. We would disagree, and possibly even counsel him to seek the truth behind that mistrust, but we would not blame him.

It is not the actual members of the federations within the UN that you must worry about. Some union enters into a federation with other unions from rogue nations. The UN union gives money or supplies of various natures to their counterparts in nations that are not held to UN law. These rogue unions now have the tools and moneys they need to mount an offensive against some third nation. UN laws have not been broken. War has been enabled as a result of this reso. Great job.
War is enabled much more regularly and much more reliably as a result of the manufacture and selling of arms, practices that the United Nations has not seen fit to limit. We cannot say that we disagree with that either. We fear that the honoured representative is losing all sense of proportion here.

Amazing, Ausserland. Your argument is basically ripped apart and utterly distroyed, and to respond, you post a link to it. I'm thinking I should spend less time here and more on the off-site forums...

We ask the representative of David 6 to put his money where his mouth is. Point out for us and those others who seem to have missed it exactly where our argument has been "ripped apart and utterly destroyed".

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

...The language used to construct the argument is the cheapest form of alarmist pettifoggery...
* ooc: I don't care whose side you're on, you have my undying respect for presenting us with the delightful linguistic gift of 'pettifoggery'. Thank you, sir, thank you! *

It is not our comparison, but that of the resolution.

You were the one that implied that medical professionals spend every waking minute attempting to save lives, compared to police officers whom you said did not. That was the comparison I was referring to.



That there was a definite lack of thought regarding it during drafting is all I was hoping to get across with that.

[quote]You misunderstand. Our argument is that the examples show that "direct" cannot mean as direct as the repeal is arguing it does. You err in asserting that this is a binary choice, in the same way that the resolution errs in failing to acknowledge that there are degrees of directness.

Again, the admission that there is a flaw within the test of the resolution is all I was hoping for.

We were unaware that these halls were underprovided with window cleaners, and will speak with the maintenance staff forthwith.

OOC: good response. made me chuckle.

A fascinating assertion which is only supported by evidence if one is feeling very confident. Such a questionable sense of security is one of the many reasons we in Gobbannium avoid the use of imprisonment.

As do many others, but not all nations follow that lead.

We observed that it fell under that province, not that it was automatically illegal. We are not so mistrustful of the intent of industry as that!

Again, you are lucky. Not all nations are as lucky as that.

Given the imprecision with which this chamber customarily wields its chosen language, rich and poor as it variously is, this can hardly be surprising.

My point exactly.

This was not our assertion. If industries can be in such a position that they can throw an entire nation into chaos, then they present a clear and present danger to the government of that nation unless said government owns them. We suspect you would rather we pursued this line of reasoning no further.

By all means, pursue away. There are a great many nations who allow their industries and corporations a great deal of leeway and power. Strong unions from within these groups would be quite capable of enacting strikes that pose no direct threat but would nearly cripple sections of the nation. Sure, the nation could try to force them back to work, citing the reasons you have for acknowledging the gray areas in the direct/indirect spectrum, but any decent union lawyer could win this case with the simple declaration that the letter of the law in question makes no mention of a spectrum, or the colour gray, or anything of the sort, it mentions Direct threats.

Groups of almost any size can do remarkably stupid things, and regularly do so. [IwillnotmentionBushIwillnotmentionBushIwillnotmention... bugger] We find that these are self-correcting problems. People who abuse large groups for unreasonable purposes tend to become the agents of their own destruction, given that those groups are required to be minimally democratic and will find themselves facing economic consequences for their rash actions (or inactions as the case may be). People who use large groups for reasonable purposes... are being reasonable, and should be allowed to be.

We take it that the Ambassador does not believe with any great force that citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions as far as is humanly possible in a functioning society. If one does take that stand, as we do, then one must accept the consequence that people are allowed to make stupid and wrong decisions just as much as intelligent and correct ones.

We have no issues with people making their own decisions. What we worry about is people making decisions that will negatively affect the rest of the nation.

A union of three in a workforce of ten may present a serious problem to an employer, it is true. Then again, arousing the ire of thirty percent of one's workforce is rarely a sensible approach to industrial relations, and in any case such a union, not unreasonably sized under the circumstances, would find that its actions in affecting the economic health of its company directly and obviously impacting on its own viability. A union of three in a workforce of a thousand would have rather less impact than trying to face down a dragon with a rolled up newspaper.

It's abuse of the system. That it's possible with any percentage is ridiculous.

Since the assertion in the repeal and in the subsequent justifications of it rely on that possibility being the only one, it is clearly a "wound of logic" to accept the argument.

No. Strict logic would dictate that any single instance of such things should be covered for the bill to be complete. A single instance is still a flaw. Whether that possibility is the only one, is completely irrelevant.

Now the honoured ambassador is just being silly. We have offered logic at every step, and all too often his counter arguments have been denigration and scorn rather than applied reason. We would appreciate it if he erred harder on the side of refutation rather than denial.

You offered roughly the same level of refutation to the authors comment, which is what I was responding to.

This statement does assume that the national law in question makes such an encouragement, or at least cannot do otherwise if it attempts any degree of control. It also illuminates a deep and abiding mistrust of such groups, which if it is the case would explain the near hysteria with which contrary arguments are being treated. If this is the ambassador's honestly held opinion, we would not blame him for it. We would disagree, and possibly even counsel him to seek the truth behind that mistrust, but we would not blame him.

Fair enough. Fear not for the Kivistans, we have a good relationship with the corporations and industries in our land. Where we need the work is in convincing them not to eat the planet whole for profit. We were merely exploring the possibilties that a union that wanted its demands met might jump to the internationally protected action instead of something more minor that might not be guaranteed at such a level.

War is enabled much more regularly and much more reliably as a result of the manufacture and selling of arms, practices that the United Nations has not seen fit to limit. We cannot say that we disagree with that either. We fear that the honoured representative is losing all sense of proportion here.

Proportion doesn't really come into play with my statement. It's possibility. The very fact that a shady arms deal could take place as a result of our Union legislation is frightening.

War is enabled much more regularly and much more reliably as a result of the manufacture and selling of arms, practices that the United Nations has not seen fit to limit.
Ahem. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495305)

That there was a definite lack of thought regarding it during drafting is all I was hoping to get across with that.
Perhaps if you had said so, you might have achieved your aim more quickly. Indeed, if that were the approach taken by the repeal proposal, we would have considerably less issue with it. But it is not. The repeal's arguments are such that in all honesty we initially assumed they were a joke, in making claims that were clearly not consonant with the resolution.

Again, you are lucky. Not all nations are as lucky as that.
We thank the Ambassador for his kind words, but would point out that a great deal of effort went into ensuring that 'luck', and indeed continues to go into it. That sort of luck can be achieved by any nation that sets its collective mind to such a thing.

By all means, pursue away. There are a great many nations who allow their industries and corporations a great deal of leeway and power. Strong unions from within these groups would be quite capable of enacting strikes that pose no direct threat but would nearly cripple sections of the nation. Sure, the nation could try to force them back to work, citing the reasons you have for acknowledging the gray areas in the direct/indirect spectrum, but any decent union lawyer could win this case with the simple declaration that the letter of the law in question makes no mention of a spectrum, or the colour gray, or anything of the sort, it mentions Direct threats.
Again, we find ourselves confused that you seem to regard with equanimity allowing industries and corporations to have the level of power to hold a government to ransom, yet the thought of unions wielding the same level of power causes unbridled panic to run riot in your arguments.

We have no issues with people making their own decisions. What we worry about is people making decisions that will negatively affect the rest of the nation.
Which is, we would observe again, an issue with people making their own decisions.

It's abuse of the system. That it's possible with any percentage is ridiculous.
We fail to understand. The ambassador is clearly no stranger to politics and economics, and still he expects to find perfect systems?

No. Strict logic would dictate that any single instance of such things should be covered for the bill to be complete. A single instance is still a flaw. Whether that possibility is the only one, is completely irrelevant.
Such is not the approach of the repeal argument, which asserts that independent arbitration is an inherently biased approach. To boil down the subsequent arguments somewhat, the support for this assertion seems to rely on a definition of 'independent' as 'not independent' and a singular example which exhibits the features required. While we would accept that there is again a spectrum of independence, there are also many other methods of arbitration, most of which do not exhibit any of the characteristics required to support the repeal's assertion. It being the case that the resolution does not mandate what means of arbitration shall be used, the repeal's argument on this point falls.

Proportion doesn't really come into play with my statement. It's possibility. The very fact that a shady arms deal could take place as a result of our Union legislation is frightening.
We can but repeat our previous statement, though possibly with even greater concern for the balance of our honoured colleague.

Ahem. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495305)
A piece of proposed legislation which, as we said, the UN has thus far not seen fit to enact. Please do not be deterred by our apathy on the subject.

* ooc: I don't care whose side you're on, you have my undying respect for presenting us with the delightful linguistic gift of 'pettifoggery'. Thank you, sir, thank you! *

ooc: My pleasure. I strive to use the language in an effective way and if in my own small way I have succeeded then I am content.

for my good friends I present the definition:

pettifoggery- the act of quibbling over trifles.

taken from the root word pettifogger who is a lawyer whose methods are cheap, underhanded and disreputable.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Perhaps if you had said so, you might have achieved your aim more quickly.

Good point. I'll concede that.

Indeed, if that were the approach taken by the repeal proposal, we would have considerably less issue with it. But it is not. The repeal's arguments are such that in all honesty we initially assumed they were a joke, in making claims that were clearly not consonant with the resolution.

There could have been, based on the reactions here, some definite improvements on the language used in the repeal. I can't really argue that.

Again, we find ourselves confused that you seem to regard with equanimity allowing industries and corporations to have the level of power to hold a government to ransom, yet the thought of unions wielding the same level of power causes unbridled panic to run riot in your arguments.

We're actually in the process of slowly reining in those industries in some more troublesome areas. The concern with unions is that they might achieve the level of power that we're trying to cut back on in the industries.

Which is, we would observe again, an issue with people making their own decisions.

There is a distinct difference between making a decision for yourself, and making a decision for an entire populace.

We fail to understand. The ambassador is clearly no stranger to politics and economics, and still he expects to find perfect systems?

Point. The perfect is the enemy of the good, as I've heard.

There could have been, based on the reactions here, some definite improvements on the language used in the repeal. I can't really argue that.
We thank you for that admission, for it is at the heart of the ire that we and others who have expressed their outrage at this proposal feel. It is not that the language of the repeal is flawed, it is that it is actively misleading in almost the entirety of the justification. Given the sheer speciousness of some of the arguments given in support of that language, we are unable to shake the suspicion that there was some deliberate intent involved.

We're actually in the process of slowly reining in those industries in some more troublesome areas. The concern with unions is that they might achieve the level of power that we're trying to cut back on in the industries.
We wish the ambassador's nation well in its endeavour, and would offer him the hope-filled observation that the power of a union can be no greater than the power of the industry it interacts with, as regards national politics.