NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #149 (http://www.nationstates.net/49244/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=148)
Proposed by: David6 (http://www.nationstates.net/david6)

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" (http://www.nationstates.net/49244/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=148) 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". (http://www.nationstates.net/49244/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=148)

Authored by the members of ACCEL

For anyone that wants to know, the debate of this repeal when it was in proposal form can be found
here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12357055#post12357055)

This has my full support, it is outrageous that the UN legally allows industrial action that are hazardous health and safety. Not to mention allowing the military to unionise and potentially join international federations with our nation's enemies.

Unsurprisingly this will have my support.

It will surprise no one who has paid the slightest attention that we will not be supporting this repulsive collection of misdirection and misrepresentation.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is agast at this anti-union piece of legislation coming up for vote. And as a result, as soon as I cast my vote, the entire Flibbleite delegation (all three of us) are going on strike.

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

The nation of David6 fully supports this repeal.

We invite Gobbannium to post an argument against this repeal, as he did last time. We urge Gobbannium not to to make the same post as in the last debate, however, as it would be rebutted in the same manner.

Sanguinex will be voting against this repeal. Resolution #149 is perfectly adequate the way it is and this proposed repeal misrepresents 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;
It does no such thing, it in fact expressly exempts from the right to strike those strikes that would endanger lives, such as medical or police strikes.

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;
Another misrepresentation, military personnel are also exempted from the right to strike and nowhere does the resolution make any mention of other forms of industrial action other than strikes.

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;
You have a slight point with this one in that this is not specifically mentioned in the resolution. However I would argue that this is covered in the article c of the exemptions in clause 3, as emergency services going on strike at these times would likely endanger the lives of citizens.

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;
Again, while this is not mentioned in the resolution I also see nothing in the resolution that prevents a nation setting such requirements.

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 whole point of independent arbitration is that it is independent, if it is biased then it is not truly independent is it. Additionally it does not say that independent arbitration has to involve international organisations, it is perfectly possible to have national arbitration organistions.

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,
I really fail to see how it is possible for a resolution to at the same time be too strict and too lax.


Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

Opposed.

A definite NAY.

Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-226832169.jpg Retired WerePenguins votes for MORE BEER! (And for the Repeal.)

The Colony of T A S C has voted against this appeal, the reasons stated in the appeal do not match up to the original UN Resolution. Frankly, the original resolution seems to make perfect sense.

This resolution has my complete support. It is outrageous that the UN control aspects of business that should be controlled and maintained by each and every country individually! Resolutions like the one being repealed, where every nation has to comply with something that might have a disastrous effect on their economy, standard of living, and way of life are an abomination to what the UN stands for.

I must say I'm in favour, if only because the of the military aspect of the original resolution, which whilst prohibiting such unions from engaging in strike action, still permits them to engage in other industrial action. And seeing as military industrial action might be said to include such fun things as mutiny or coup d'etats...

Votes Aye

I must say I'm in favour, if only because the of the military aspect of the original resolution, which whilst prohibiting such unions from engaging in strike action, still permits them to engage in other industrial action. And seeing as military industrial action might be said to include such fun things as mutiny or coup d'etats...

We'd ask our honorable colleague from Cobdenia to think about this again. The resolution is silent on the subject of industrial actions other than strikes. Therefore, your nation is perfectly free to ban such actions.

Clause 4 of this repeal clearly misrepresents the provisions of the resolution.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

vote yes to repeal its riduculous to force member nation to make unions. in theory unions can be good but they end up producing corruption and no work they hurt the economy and if you are worried about big bussiness they can be kept at bay in far better ways than the threat of workers walking out.

vote yes to repeal its riduculous to force member nation to make unions. in theory unions can be good but they end up producing corruption and no work they hurt the economy and if you are worried about big bussiness they can be kept at bay in far better ways than the threat of workers walking out.

My eyes are bleeding now, thank you.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The International Communist Union says NAY to this nasty piece of anti-worker trash of a repeal. I as the ICU UN Delegate voted AGAINST within the first few hours.

The author, David6, has stooped so low as to send a telegram to myself as Delegate after noting I voted against and I would like a ruling from at least two moderators as to the ethics of this - the place for debate is HERE, not to send telegrams trying to get Delegates to change their vote because the author's repeal/resolution is not going the way they want it to! It has never happened before, and is highly irregular, and inappropriate. Once I cast my vote, that is that. THIS is the proper forum for debate, not my nation's inbox...David6 must be reprimanded, it is insulting in the extreme to have one's measured decision questioned and persuasion applied to change my vote IN MY TELEGRAM INBOX.

This is the copy and paste of the full telegram David6 sent, and I am sure that other Delegates who voted against received similar:

"Greetings Esteemed Delegate,

We are writing because we noticed you voted against the proposed repeal of Resolution #149 “The Right to Form Unions.” We think it appropriate that we explain our motives, goals, and reasoning. We fully agree with the right of workers to form unions, the right to protest poor working conditions, and the importance of fair wages. Although we applaud the noble intention of “The Right to Form Unions”, it unfortunately contains a series of legislative flaws. Below is a small portion of the list of problems of Resolution #149:

First, “The Right to Form Unions” grants workers the right to strike, but it does so without regard for strikes that severely endanger health, safety, law and order, or public well-being. By granting blanket permission to these strikes, “The Right to Form Unions” greatly hampers ability of member governments to ensure security, safety, and well-being to the people they serve.

In addition, “The Right to Form Unions” permits the military to form violent international organizations, provided that they officially refer to these organizations as ‘unions.’ Furthermore, it allows the military to engage in non-strike industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule.

These are only two of the grave and dangerous flaws contained in “The Right to Form Unions” that cause it to poorly protect unions and gravely threaten national security. In addition to these faults, “The Right to Form Unions” accidentally legalizes all wildcat strikes, and internationally implements a wasteful and bureaucratic system for resolving employment disputes. These flaws are explained in greater detail in the text of the repeal.

Please note that the repeal of “The Right to Form Unions” will not cause the disbanding of international or national unions, nor will it outlaw strikes. Due to the guarantee of the right to peacefully assemble contained in “The Universal Bill of Rights”, the repeal of “The Right to Form Unions” will not allow nations to deny peaceful worker unions the right to exist. Rather, it will simply allow nations to address the many problems that this horribly flawed resolution creates.

You can change your vote on Repeal “The Right to Form Unions” to FOR by going to this link.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=un/vote=for

Thank you for your time and consideration,
The Utopia Under Construction of David6"

Iain. (Minyos - International Communist Union UN Delegate, ICU Defense Minister, World Left Wing Alliance (WLWA) Global Moderator)

The International Communist Union says NAY to this nasty piece of anti-worker trash of a repeal. I as the ICU UN Delegate voted AGAINST within the first few hours.

The author, David6, has stooped so low as to send a telegram to myself as Delegate after noting I voted against and I would like a ruling from at least two moderators as to the ethics of this - the place for debate is HERE, not to send telegrams trying to get Delegates to change their vote because the author's repeal/resolution is not going the way they want it to! It has never happened before, and is highly irregular, and inappropriate. Once I cast my vote, that is that. THIS is the proper forum for debate, not my nation's inbox...David6 must be reprimanded, it is insulting in the extreme to have one's measured decision questioned and persuasion applied to change my vote IN MY TELEGRAM INBOX.

*snip*

It's called campaigning. Grow some skin.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Yeah, whatever, you're not a mod, and I have never liked your rudeness anyway.

Yeah, whatever, you're not a mod, and I have never liked your rudeness anyway.

OOC: You fail at telling the difference between OOC and IC. And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. Now run along, kid.

Yeah, whatever, you're not a mod, and I have never liked your rudeness anyway.

OOC: Cluich may not be a mod, for that matter neither am I, but he's right, it's a perfectly legitimate tactic.

It may be a legit tactic, but it's low...and speaks volumes for how good this repeal is if this is what is being stooped to.

As to "Run along kid" I'm a 35 year old professional, and have been an environmental/political and social activist since 15.

You're probably the 26 year old punk kid here, boyo.

Nark off. No wonder I stopped posting in here ages ago.

No wonder I stopped posting in here ages ago.

OOC: Might I suggest, then, stopping again?

As Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild I cast my vote AGAINST this repeal resolution. It's author clearly has anti-union sentiments and has used the most extreme examples of poor conduct in an attempt to frighten sovereign nations into casting votes his way. While there is no rule aganst such egregious conduct, I consider this on the edge of bad taste.

The resolution in question extends no such permissions or authority upon organized labor unions to engage in the egregious conduct that the author cites. I repeat for the record, no responsible union would ever consider striking during a time of national or civil emergency and the resolution this author wishes to strike down covers these instances in its' text by expressly exempting these unions from the right to strike during civil or medical emergencies. (see Sanguinex above)

Further, military service members, regardless of nation have never been allowed to organize into a labor union. Mechanisms are already in place in most military services covering official conduct of members and officers within the service regulations.

This measure would allow nations to restore draconian anti-worker laws without the workers being allowed to organize and defend themselves against the depredations of executives and their representatives.

For these reasons and many others, the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild flatly rejects this resolution and rebukes the author of the resolution in no uncertain terms.

Geoffrey A. Gosford, KCB, KCMG
Prime Minister
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I would like to urge everybody to vote against this repeal. It will be a blow for worker's rights, and as we all know unhappy workers are bad for production and bad for the economy.

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;

The resolution clearly states:
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;

You may be of the opinion that a strike should not convey any threat. That is what I gather from this point. By doing that you effectively say that a strike should be toothless, so that workers have nothing to fall back to if their employer exploits them.

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

You can make laws about that, as long as they do not interfere with the right of people to form or join unions.

Or you could create proper laws protecting workers, so they don't need to form or join unions. Up to you. Don't you love the freedom the UN gives you?

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

It says independent. That means it should not have any bias towards any particular side.

If you fear that that means your firefighters will be able to get a fair pay for a fair day's work without having to go on strike endangering lives, you are right.

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;

Oh please, you can't be serious or you are a poor reader. Millitairy personnel is exempted from the right to strike. Other actions are not mentioned. If your armed forces are threatening national security, you have a problem with your armed forced - not with unions. They will find other ways to overthrow your government.



activities which your people are apparently prone to; as if being able to come up for their rights suddenly makes everybody a terrorist.

[quote] but further that it in no way guarantees the fair and just protections of union workers,

Again, you read the resolution poorly. It clearly gives people the right to join or form a union, enabling them to protect their rights as workers against employers, who generally are in a more powerfull position. You need balance. That's what the resolution gave.

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,

No, repealing will mean that in the nations where the granted rights are needed the most, will be no longer in place.

Vote against, in the interest of your people and your economy.

I'm not a mod either, but personally, I don't see a problem, unless he telegrams you repeatedly on the same vote. When I was a Delegate, I got quite a few TGs asking me to vote a certain way. I don't recall getting any after I voted, but if I had, it would't have bothered me, as long as the person was polite.

I must say I'm in favour, if only because the of the military aspect of the original resolution, which whilst prohibiting such unions from engaging in strike action, still permits them to engage in other industrial action. And seeing as military industrial action might be said to include such fun things as mutiny or coup d'etats...

Please quote the bit of the original resolution that allows that.

It may be a legit tactic, but it's low...and speaks volumes for how good this repeal is if this is what is being stooped to.

As to "Run along kid" I'm a 35 year old professional, and have been an environmental/political and social activist since 15.

You're probably the 26 year old punk kid here, boyo.

Nark off. No wonder I stopped posting in here ages ago.

OOC: It's legit campaigning. It doesn't arise much in real life because ballots tend to either be secret or over quickly enough that no campaigning is possible after an individual's vote is known. It's the inverse of what I did in telegramming the delegates who endorsed the repeal, urging them to compare the repeal against the original resolution and change their minds. If I had anything like the time I'd be doing the same thing as David6 now, only in reverse.

Oh, and I beat you on the age and political activism fronts.

IC: We were still awaiting a response from the honoured representative of David6 to our last return of argument to him, or indeed any of the points that we successfully argued against the honoured representative from Kivisto. For the avoidance of doubt, we will attempt to assemble the relevant points and summarised preceding arguments some time later today.

VOTE YES!!!

It should be up to each member nation of the UN to decide whether or not that they feel that worker unions would benefit their nation. The orginal resolution is absurd and should be REPEALED immediately!

VOTE YES FOR FOR THE GOOD YOUR NATION, REGION, AND WORLD

Vote AGAINST the repeal. It is nothing more than a pack of lies.

Their claim:

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;


But, from the original document:

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;


They are just repealing every god damned vaguely liberal resolution, and doing so on lies.

You're probably the 26 year old punk kid here, boyo.

OOC: And what exactly is so wrong about being 26? (and I'm asking as the 26 year old player here)

As to "Run along kid" I'm a 35 year old professional, ...

Well I'm a 45 year old professional. So hush now before I start asking the more mature posters to start commenting on your age. On the other hand I should point out, because I don't want to make the mature posters too aware of their old age, that you are only as young as the person you are currently feeling.

And don't get me started on the maturity thing. I'm sure that there's a 14 year old out there who is more mature than either of us. And a 60 year old who is a pure baby brat.

David6's claims are patently false.


The Right to Form Unions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Groot Gouda

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

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

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

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

The NS UN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added)

ATTENTION, those IN FAVOR of the CURRENT REPEAL:

The original resolution does not FORCE your nation to do anything but recognize the formation of unions as a RIGHT. It establishes that unions shall NOT be made illegal. How you choose to proceed from that point is ENTIRELY up to you.

David6's argument that it jeopardizes the military or heath and safety is EXPLICITLY refuted by Clause 3.

I urge you to vote AGAINST this knee-jerk, reactionary, anti-union piece of political posturing.

I feel there are several points that need to be made in light of this debate.

First off, even though I vote against the repeal it is because I believe the original resolution is adequate and is misrepresented in the repeal. Not because David6 is shallow or because I'm a die-hard civil rights activist.

The campaigning practices of David6, while questionable, should have no impact on the decision to vote for or against this repeal. Legislation should be judged by the legislation itself, not the diplomats who endorse it.

Furthermore, those arguing that labor unions have no right to be allowed by the UN should leave the UN. As I've said in previous debates, those in the UN joined by choice knowing they were joining a democratic system interested in passing general resolutions for the common good. The concept of labor unions is to promote fairness not to destroy buisness. Please consider this before assaulting an ideal that is being justly pursued by the UN.

Thank you for your consideration.

Chancellor Anguimalla
Nex Messor

I do hope that the bickering is done. If not, I hope that all involved will take it elsewhere. I wouldn't want to see anyone have a warning slapped on them for this.

At any rate, I would vote for the repeal if I could, but not being a UN nation, I can't. However, I do hope that our Delegate will vote in favour.

Lillith Cresil: UN Observer
The Torture Chamber of Lady Deathstrike

Delegates, the reactionary and frankly innapropriate conflagration that has broken out during this debate just serves to emphasize the overbearing reactionary natures of all nations who would endorse this resolution.

The delegation from the People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya would urge all but the most fascist of nations to vote against this resolution, as not only does it drastically limit the political and civil rights of workers (thereby reducing them to a subhuman level) but it does so under false pretenses.

This tyrannical piece of legeslation would prevent strikes that "severely endanger health, safety, law and order, or public well-being."
We would ask the submitting delegate, exactly how do strikes - organized, legal protests - endanger health, safety, law and order, or public well-being?

One thing is certain: if this resolution is passed, health, safety, law and order and public well-being WILL be severely endangered! Do the nations here really want their soverign citizens to be tied down to their jobs, under harsh and inhumane conditions for menial wages?

My International Communist Union regional delegate makes a good point. We have seen resolution after resolution repealed, with promises of newer, better replacements. However, these replacements have so far failed to materialize! Let us not give in to fascism, let us not believe their lies!

A vote in favour of this resolution is a vote for a police state. I therefore urge the level-headed democratic members of the UN to vote against.

Help us stop this torrent of violent rightism now!

Colonel Marco Ignatius
UN Ambassador
Leninian-Trotskyan Permanent Mission to the United Nations

Delegates, the reactionary and frankly innapropriate conflagration that has broken out during this debate just serves to emphasize the overbearing reactionary natures of all nations who would endorse this resolution.

As opposed to your hyperbole?

The delegation from the People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya would urge all but the most fascist of nations to vote against this resolution, as not only does it drastically limit the political and civil rights of workers (thereby reducing them to a subhuman level) but it does so under false pretenses.

It can only do that if you choose to allow such to happen in your nation. This repeal would leave the question of whether or not to allow unionisation in your nation. If the repeal passes, you can still keep your unions. You'd be under no obligation to dissolve them. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could increase their power ad nauseam.

And "subhuman"? Come now. Can't you do without the absurd rhetoric?

This tyrannical piece of legeslation would prevent strikes that "severely endanger health, safety, law and order, or public well-being."

"Tyrannical"? More ridiculous rhetoric. There's nothing tyrannical about this repeal. In fact, repealing the resolution gives your nation even more freedom.

We would ask the submitting delegate, exactly how do strikes - organized, legal protests - endanger health, safety, law and order, or public well-being?

I'll leave this question to the repeal's author.

One thing is certain:

Oh, it's certain?

if this resolution is passed, health, safety, law and order and public well-being WILL be severely endangered!

Oh, you've seen this in your crystal ball, have you?

Do the nations here really want their soverign citizens to be tied down to their jobs, under harsh and inhumane conditions for menial wages?

If you don't want that, then make sure you prevent it in your own nation. Do you need the UN to wipe your ass for you, too?

My International Communist Union regional delegate makes a good point. We have seen resolution after resolution repealed, with promises of newer, better replacements.

Uh...where have you seen these promises? I must've missed them.

Oh, wait...there weren't any.

However, these replacements have so far failed to materialize!

You could always try writing one yourself. But I suppose it's easier simply to rant about tyranny and fascism instead.

Let us not give in to fascism, let us not believe their lies!

You're not really even clear on what fascism is, are you?

A vote in favour of this resolution is a vote for a police state.

No, it's a vote for national sovereignty, a concept which you obviously haven't grasped.

I therefore urge the level-headed democratic members of the UN to vote against.

Cluichstan is a level-headed democracy (well, mostly). We're voting against. Your silly tirade here certainly did not convince us to change our position.

Help us stop this torrent of violent rightism now!

Violence? You want to see violence?

*defenestrates Colonel Marco Ignatius*

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Wow...I haven't posted anything like that in quite a while. It felt good! :D

The following is a summary of the debate between ourself and the honoured representative from David6, illuminated by further discussions between ourselves and the Ambassadors of Kivisto and Hirota. It is by no means the whole of the arguments raised for and against -- for instance, we note that the Prime Minister of Ausserland is still due a response to his most recent challenge in that thread -- but we hope that delegates will forgive us for abridging the debate as we have. Some of our mutual misunderstandings and suspicions are not edifying, and even taking some liberties with the range of discussions pursued this document is still quite lengthy.

We proceeded point by point through the repeal text, which would appear to be the sensible approach to repeat.

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;

Some discussion clarified that the term "health and safety" is being used to indicate the physical wellbeing of civilians, rather than the manner in which legislation normally uses the term. We will omit that particular discursive dead-end, and instead concentrate on the crucial bone of contention, Clause 3c of the original resolution:

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

Clearly the repeal is correct in observing that indirect endangerment of civilian lives is not a justification for forbidding a strike. We consider this a not unreasonable position for the resolution to take, and will address the issue later.

Equally clearly the resolution is explicit in forbidding police personnel the right to strike, so the resolution's assertion that there is "blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to [...] law and order" is manifestly incorrect.

The problem arises because the language of the resolution was not particularly well thought out in this subclause, something which is made obvious by the choice of example exceptions. The fault shows up most sharply in the assumption that "directness" is a binary state; a strike will either directly endanger citizens' lives or not. Any serious consideration of the duties of police and medical personnel show this to be incorrect. It is tempting to regard the life of a policeman as being as vigorous and full of flying lead as that of the detectives on one's favorite police drama, but in fact such is rarely the case. Similarly, although hospital-based healthcare professionals may literally hold a patient's life in their hands on a minute-to-minute basis, the same is very rarely true of General Practicioners and other primary healthcare staff, and almost never true of tertiary healthcare staff.

This observation forces us to modify our statement to note that a strike may directly endanger citizens' lives. In other words, in dealing with the resolution we are forced to consider a spectrum of directness of endangerment with a more subjective dividing line than the wording of the resolution (and that of the repeal) would imply. The examples make it clear that the intention of the clause is to avoid reasonable expectation of danger to life and limb of ordinary citizens. The repeal takes the opposite view, something which we do not believe has yet been demonstrated to be in concorde with the listed exemptions.

In the course of this discussion the Ambassador of David6 noted than an example of a strike hazardous to public wellbeing would be an industry-wide strike against power companies, causing blackouts, the interruption of the nation's normal operation, and so on. We would disagree with his analysis, which begins in places to sound as if civilisation itself would end were this to come to pass. It matters little which of us is in fact correct; if a union were in such a position as to be able to hold a nation to ransom like this, then so is the industry it is unionised under, and no nation should be happy about either situation.

Then again, given the fondness of some in this chamber for playing the "reasonable nations" card, we should perhaps invoke both the "reasonable unions" and "reasonable industries" cards and be done with it.

The above is, of course, an example of a strike which, assuming that hospitals have backup generators for critical life-support equipment, only indirectly threatens the health of civilians. The proponents of the repeal appear to regard this as a defect of the resolution; we regard it as an essential protection therein. In its absence a sufficiently determined lawyer could argue that almost any strike action threatened the lives of some citizens, and was therefore illegal. A strike of transit workers, for instance, would prevent a goodly number of police and doctors from reaching their places of work, with the consequent possibility of people dying due to their absence, and the subsequent descent of civilisation into anarchy. Lest delegates think we are being silly in that last statement, we would reckon that the probabilities involved in each of the last two steps are very similar.

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

We observed that Clause 6 of the resolution allows nations to legislate minimum democratic standards within unions, which is of some relevance here, though the Ambassador of David6 disputed (not unreasonably) just how far that could be taken. That said, we utterly fail to see a causal connection between small unions, multiple membership of unions, and wildcat strikes. Small unions in particular are either involved with small companies, where their size is entirely appropriate, or are insignificant.

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;

We challenged that the transition from 'independent arbitration' to 'bias-prone system' was an illogical one, given that one would hope the definition of 'independent' did not exclude 'unbiased'. In fact our argument erred in asserting a binary nature of dependence, which was quite incorrect of us.

The representative of David6 responded with an illuminating story from a fiction magazine, (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/01/MN73462.DTL) which we feel well-advised in not dismissing out of hand but instead regarding as an important warning on the nature of independence. The ambassador's stated preference was for a court-based system of arbitration.

We observed that court-based arbitration was not ruled out in any way by the resolution, which merely requires independence. The times it would be at issue -- dealing with government employees in nations where the judiciary are not fully independent of the government -- are also the times where the court itself would be an inherently biased system. Further, the Ambassador appeared to be fixated on a single possible arbitration method as an evil to be stamped out, one whose independence is in any case highly questionable. Alternatives, for example similar systems where the employer does not have the right to select the arbitrator (and, for balance, neither does the union), were not considered. The assertion of the repeal is therefore still unproven.

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, we asserted, is flatly untrue.

For the first part, the resolution is entirely silent on industrial action other than strikes. Clause 8 therefore presents no barrier to any nation intending to legislate on the subject. In short, the resolution neither permits nor denies this. The representative of David6 countered by representing Clause 8 (below), but failed to indicate in any way why it might apply.

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.

For the second part of the repeal's clause 4, the right to federate is one granted to unions, not individuals. We are unconvinced that any threat to national security is enacted thereby, never mind a critical one. The resolution itself is quite interesting in this regard:

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,

To be protected by this clause, an international federation must be one of Trade Unions in the first place. This immediately puts paid to the idea of unions joining terrorist organisations that one might be tempted to read into the emotive language of the repeal.

It is also the case that this clause does not protect the transfer of armaments, sensitive information relevant to national security, or even names, addresses and monies between members of a confederation. The provisions of Clause 8 therefore do not apply, and we believe it was the honoured representative of Ausserland who observed that military personnel who break the rules can still expect to be subjected to courts martial.

The counter to this was that the international organisation itself can donate money and weapons to violent causes. We acknowledge that this may or may not be legal in the country in which the organisation is based, regardless of what one considers the coverage of Clause 1 to be. This, it was asserted, is a dangerous threat.

We find ourselves utterly unterrified at the prospect. Let us not forget that we are speaking of confederations of Trade Unions here; more specifically, a confederation that the membership of a union representing the nation's military feel it is appropriate for them to affiliate to. If a government trusts its military so little, or worse the military personnel feel that associating with a body that donates to violent causes (presumably not considering the member militaries as violent) contrary to the interests of their nation, then as others have pointed out that government has far greater problems than will ever be solved by any amount of legislation.

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;

Avoiding the temptation to play the "reasonable union" card, this clause falls into two parts depending on the nature of industrial action considered.

As observed in the discussion of the repeal's clause 4 above, if we are considering anything other than strike action then the resolution makes no comment on the issue. In such cases, the repeal's assertion is clearly incorrect.

If we are concerned with strike action, then the emergency services (which we presume to be ones which deal with life-threatening circumstances) are already exempt from the right to strike. Again, the repeal's assertion does not hold.


We believe that this disposes of all five of the repeal's supporting arguments, and therefore encourage all member nations to vote against it.

The government of Pilot officially opposes this U.N. resolution and calls upon allies to organize and work toward its defeat.

The nation of Heysatan votes against the repeal of UN Resolution #149.

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

No, it does not. The resolution mentions only strikes, it is consistent in its language, and it be presumed to exclude all other types of industrial action.

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

Two points are to be dealt with here:

1. Setting a minimum threshold in a resolution would make a nonsense of it, due to differing populations, differing leading industries within economies and the nature of the state. A state of a capatilist nature, for instance, will be dominated by the private sector, traditionally this sector has low trade union membership take-up, imposing a minimum threshold would limit workers' rights to even establish a union. I don't think I need to elaborate further.

2. Legalising wildcat strikes: this is dealt with by clause 3(b) of the resolution - "EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2: strikes not authorised by a union"

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....

Unions are lobby groups, they defend and advocate the rights of workers, of course they are going to be biased. That's the point.

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;

I'm not quite sure what this means; civil disobedience during a strike? riots? Heaven forbid we should crush the civil rights movement. If this isn't what is meant, then I refer you to clause 3(c), a simple rebuttal: EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2: . Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel. I also refer you to clause 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.

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;

Point taken, but this can be achieved without repealing the resolution as it does not prevent individual nations from doing so.

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,

Is that from the Daily Mail? Balderdash. :)

Iridia is opposed to this resolution.

Secretary: Call on Line One for you, you Eminence.
Linard Skyre: Who is it?
Secretary: Horgen Dush, the UN Representative, Your Eminence.
Linard: Ah! Must be about the last lot of students that went to the UN offices. I'll take it. [picks up handset] Hello, Horgen. How'd the students go?
Horgen: I'm very pleased about them, Your Eminence. In actual fact, it's because of what one of the students said that has prompted me to call you.
Linard: Please tell me what they said was good.
Horgen: Well, he did make a point about a resolution up for debate, Your Eminence.
Linard: Mmmmm?
Horgen: A repeal, in fact. "The Right to Form Unions" is under debate.
Linard: Ah yes, I remember reading that one. Made a very interesting point. [ruffles through papers on desk]
Horgen: Well, apparently, they're saying it allows dangerous activities to ensue while under union leadership.
Linard: Like...?
Horgen: Participation in dangerous or illegal strikes.
Linard: Strange. [pulling out resolution sheet] Says here they aren't in fact allowed under the resolution. Paragraphs 3 and 8.
Horgen: Thresholds of membership.
Linard: A one-man union isn't really a union, so that's moot. Next?
Horgen: Possible bias drawn from a forced independant arbitration.
Linard: Do you even understand that part?
Horgen: No, Your Eminence.
Linard: Nor do I. Next.
Horgen: Allowance of military personnel to engage in industrial action.
Linard: They didn't read Paragraphs two and three then, did they?
Horgen: Possibly not. Lastly, it says here, and I quote, it "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." Does that even occur in the resolution, do you think, Your Eminence?
Linard: I thought that was covered in Paragraph Three, part c.
Horgen: So did I. Do you think this resolution has a future?
Linard: Which? "The Right to Form Unions", or its repeal.
Horgen: Both, Your Eminence.
Linard: The repeal, no. "The Right to Form Unions", yes.
Horgen: I knew we were on the same page, Your Eminence.
Linard: I think we were on the same line. I don't need to say what to register as our vote.
Horgen: Your vote against will be noted, Your Eminence. Thank you.
Linard: Don't thank me, thank the students. They brought this up.

There is a large mob rioting outside the UN building. They are all armed with tomatoes. Some have rioters have bruises, as they were recently defenestrated. They are screaming at the people inside of the building, but mostly at each other. Many are holding signs that read Stop Violent Rightism, David6 is a Tyrant, A Vote In Favor Is A Vote for Facism, or I Want Beer.

An old man of about 60 walks out of the UN building onto a balcony on the fourth floor. He walks proudly, but with a tinge of fear. He approaches the podium. It is not, as expected, Nathaniel Friedman, president of David6. It is David6, the leading figure in the Third Revolution of David6, when the minarchial state was established.

"Put down your tomatoes. Is the bickering, emotive ranting, name calling, and David6-bashing over now? Really, are you all finished? Because I have something to say.

"This repeal does not contradict the resolution at all, nor does it misrepresent the resolution. It highlights the many problems that the resolution has. It states that these problems are alarming, and that they provide sufficient reason for the a repeal of the resolution. I will endeavor to explain to you now what the hell the repeal is talking about.

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. 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;


"In other words, the resolution in question grants permission to all strikes, except those by (A) the armed forces (B) those not authorized by unions, and (C) those which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation. This means that if there is a strike that is indirectly severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, or public well being, or indirectly endanger the lives of citizens of a nation, it is still legal and must remain legal provided it does not endanger the lives of citizens in a nation directly.

"Some examples of this include...
air-traffic controllers
firemen
certain railroad employees
government employees
A strike of air-traffic controllers is potentially very dangerous, but does not directly endanger the lives of citizens. If firemen went on strike, property, and much worse, human lives, would be lost. This strike would indirectly (the firemen are endangering lives by not saving them) endanger human lives, not directly endanger them, and would thus be legal under the resolution in question. If the railroad employees who, say, fixed tracks and warned drivers of broken tracks went on strike, civilian life would be lost. These strikers, however, are indirectly endangering human lives; it is the broken track that directly endangers life. This strike is legal even though it destroys civilian lives. If certain government employees went on strike, countries could lapse into violence and anarchy, with no illegal initating action. Under the resolution in question "The Right to Form Unions," all this can happen, legally--due to clause 8 no nation can prevent it.

OOC: I will post the defense of the other points later, maybe tonight or maybe tomorrow, my space bar is broken, which makes it very time consuming and tedious to write.

After reveiwing the arguments against this repeal, we find ourselves in complete agreement, and Altanar will be voting against.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The nation of Athanian agrees with the more intelligent arguments AGAINST this repeal. Our nation's vote will be cast against this resolution.

Alexander Kerro,
Temporary UN Representative for the Armed Republic of Athanian

After much thought, I have chosen to vote against this repeal.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

With the greatest possible respect to the honoured person of David6, we must draw his attention to our counter-argument, which we hope he will address in due course.

Once I am working on a fully functioning keyboard I will be able to finish my defense, and write a response to the arguments of Groot and Gobbaneum. Any help from Kiv or Kenny would be appreciated on responding to those, I am currently working on the rest of the defense.

The nation of Imperfectia casts its vote against this repeal and does not feel the need to reiterate the arguments as to why.

We will be encouraging our region's delegate to vote against this repeal as well.

It is our belief that people who choose to work should be able to choose their Union, or make a new one all together.

We are saddened by this proposal and will not support this legislation, or any such legislation that destroys the rights of the working class.

Lord Dane Kiveh
Minister of Labour and Union
The Grand Duchy of Alagir

It eliminates the rights of unions is not a valid argument against this repeal. If you want unions to be fully protected on an international scale, write your own replacement to do so.

The FCA Empire and her member states will be in full support of the repeal.

The Great Star Empire opposes this legislation due to the complete misrepresentation of the original resolution, as well as the inability of the authoring party to explain these mischaracterizations.

Although the Empire would like nothing more than to see this repealed, we feel that the manner in which it is being pursued does no justice to the original authors, nor does it reflect well upon the general behavior of this body.

Most courteously,

It eliminates the rights of unions is not a valid argument against this repeal.

So are you saying that no nation will ban unions if this is repealed and allows them to do so? Do you not accept that many countries, especially dictatorial or extreme capitalist ones, will take the opportunity to forbid labour organisations?

If you want unions to be fully protected on an international scale, write your own replacement to do so.

Why should we have to write a replacement when we can just vote against your blatantly misleading and deceitful repeal?

I would like a ruling from at least two moderators as to the ethics of thisIt's just fine. If a second Moderator feels the need to echo my comments they can, but I don't see it as necessary.

I'm a 35 year old professionalThen please act like it. First step would be to quit waving your age around like a banner. These forums have an ignore function. Feel free to make use of it.

I have to agree with the author of the resolution "Right to Form Labor Unions."

This repeal resolution is fundamentally flawed and misleading.

It's made to sound reasonable because of the misleading statemants it contains, but to me, that tactic is fraudulent and deceiving.

I urge all my fellow delegates to join me in voting against this poor example of a repeal resolutionand to assure its defeat.

We agree with our esteemed colleague from the Democratic Federation of Grosseschnauzer and would like to encourage the delegates of this assembly to vote against this repeal. We give our full support to the delegation from the Glorious People's Republic and their original resolution. Their previous response in this thread should be more than enough to convince uncertain voters.

The GPRG votes, undeniably, AGAINST this repeal.

Linda Anaris
UN-Office
GPRG

It can only do that if you choose to allow such to happen in your nation. This repeal would leave the question of whether or not to allow unionisation in your nation. If the repeal passes, you can still keep your unions.

But the people that need it most can't. And that's why this repeal should not happen. The UN isn't there so only sensible nations can have sensible legislation. There are basic human rights I believe in, rights that every nation should respect.

I'm a capitalist, and I see an employer-employee relationship as something private between those two. However, in a capitalist system, a company has a simple and basic objective: profit. And usually a single large sum of money to spend: wages & working conditions. That's where it goes wrong. It's easy to scrape money of the workers who hired themselves out to a company. Especially in unfavourable economic conditions, an employer has a very powerfull position over a worker. You need legislation to balance that power, so a worker can work in a safe environment, for a reasonable pay.

Unions are part of a capitalist system (and fortunately fit in communist and socialist systems as well). They enable the individual worker to have a better position when negotiating with (large) corporations. If a worker doesn't earn enough money for paying the rent on a fulltime job, action is needed. If, without union protection, the action is "there's a queue of people waiting to replace you, sod off", then that is when the public safety will really be in danger. And your work will eventually not be done anymore. At the cost of people's lives.

This means that if there is a strike that is indirectly severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, or public well being, or indirectly endanger the lives of citizens of a nation, it is still legal and must remain legal provided it does not endanger the lives of citizens in a nation directly.

"Some examples of this include...
air-traffic controllers
firemen
certain railroad employees
government employees

Firemen on strike directly endanger people's lives. You can remove them from your list. The rest doesn't matter. Air-traffic controllers on strike? Shut down your airports. No danger at all. Major inconvenience, probably, but hey, air-traffic controller is an important job so you'd better pay them well. Same for railroad employees. Government employees? Oh please. Important, certainly, but in no way do they endanger people's lives when they go on strike. In some cases, people might argue, life gets a little bit better.

Government employees? Oh please. Important, certainly, but in no way do they endanger people's lives when they go on strike.
Come back when rubbish collection and sanitation has been on strike for a few weeks, and try again.

We'd ask our honorable colleague from Cobdenia to think about this again. The resolution is silent on the subject of industrial actions other than strikes. Therefore, your nation is perfectly free to ban such actions.

Clause 4 of this repeal clearly misrepresents the provisions of the resolution.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

You are correct, Travilia. Must be my fuzzy memory, I misremembered artical two as including other industrial action, but indeed it does not. All these resolutions, brain's bound to go. Vote change to an abstaintion - I still think it should be repealed (largely due to internationalist elements and because I'm a black hearted capitalist bastard), but not with this appeal.

Sir Cyril etc

Welcome back Groot.

I don't think I need to add anything at the moment to this topic, Gobbannium, Intangelon, Groot, Ausserland and Imperfectia have all very eloquently outlined serious issues with the repeal, and a lot of occasional or first time posters have made similar observations.

I'm going to sit back and debate elsewhere methinks.

The government of the Grand Duchy of Perfect Prince, though open to an improvement of the wording of the original resolution, declares it's opposition to the present repeal, as it either misreads or unfairly depicts resolution #149, and, with the support of the nation's Senate, will request it's regional delegate to vote against.

I have been authorised to vote against this repeal by a sizeable majority of the New Cultural Revolution's governing council. I would like to note that this decision should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the original resolution. Our vote in the negative merely reflects dissatisfaction with the contents of the repeal.

Benedictions,

I'm going to sit back and debate elsewhere methinks.
While that's the best news I've heard all day, I'm bemused as to why you bothered saying it. Oh, smug goading...of course.

Come back when rubbish collection and sanitation has been on strike for a few weeks, and try again.

Firstly, they needn't be in the hands of government.

Secondly, they can be replaced by other people.

I see no problem at all, except for government or companies unwilling to collect rubbish, provide sanitation, and/or provide proper pay for those who do such important jobs.

But that's up to your nation, of course. Your responsibility.

Welcome back Groot.

Thanks :) I'd hoped for a more quiet comeback, though.

I don't think I need to add anything at the moment to this topic, Gobbannium, Intangelon, Groot, Ausserland and Imperfectia have all very eloquently outlined serious issues with the repeal, and a lot of occasional or first time posters have made similar observations.

True, but looking at the vote, many don't seem to understand that this repeal consists of lies and misrepresenatations.

It's interesting to see the logic being used to defend this resolution by its author.
If you think workers should be given the right to organize themselves to ensure they get paid fairly in proper working conditions, you should be against this repeal.
In other words, ignore all other flaws in the document, and vote based on ideological knee-jerkism instead of practical considerations of legislative effect.
In fact, it being an IDU resolutions, you should simply be against this repeal.
So the region of origin dictates the quality of the resolution and the support for it. I'd be impressed if someone could uncover a more horrific monstrosity of arrogance.
Generally, resolution that come from the IDU are sensible, broad and proper resolutions in all. I've supported IDU resolutions without properly reading them and will continue to do so, I've never been disappointed.
What I love about this is the way the perfectly sensible response:
Just because a resolution is written by the IDU doesn't mean that its perfect or cover everything that it should. If someone spots a potential flaw in one of our resolutions then we should simply rewrite it to correct the mistake. Every attempt to repeal something doesn't indicate a conspiracy towards the IDU.
is delivered up.

This is 'answered' through the same series of crass, unthinking, head-bloating generalisations...
Pagemaster, the resolutions that have come out of the IDU's member tend to be well written and well-vetted.
...outright and irrelevant lies...
"The Right To Form Labor Union" also havs the rare distinction of being one of the first replacement resolutions ever adopted in the NSUN.
...obligatory potshots at the character of any other region that dares submit UN proposals...
I would also point out that many of the series of repeal resolutions we have seen have been part of the effort of a bloc to repeal almost everything that they can come up with, no matter how far fetched the grounds of certain repeals have been.
...bizarre and incomprehensible utterances...
This is why I have become deeply susicious of repeals because the process doesn't seem to be used any longer to repeal resolutions that might need amendment or updating, but instead are part of a political agenda.

I'll stop there, before any more of this disgusting, fetid horseshit will make me sick to my stomach. While we all gather round to moan about the nasty lying brutes who authored the repeal, why not spare a thought for the sanctimonious, condescending arrogance of those whose only reason for opposing it is:
I'm simply pissed off that someone's trying to repeal one of my resolutions.

I was going to reply to the recent comments made by the representative from Groot Gouda, but it appears, as I read through the transcripts from what I missed (sorry, popped off for a roll in the hay with a CPESL girl), that my friend Mr. Madison has already done so most admirably.

Thank you. *tips his turban*

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ah, with one exception...

But that's up to your nation, of course. Your responsibility.

Given the source, wow, that's just rich! *doubles over in laughter*

Firstly, they needn't be in the hands of government.
Those are the sorts of services that traditionally are. Which is an irrelevance anyway, because I'm clearly talking about cases where those services are provided by government employees, given the context was originally the mention of government employees; if it's done by a private firm, then great - private employees.

And the spectre of the labour activist encouraging privatisation of public services is intensely amusing.
Secondly, they can be replaced by other people.
At a cost, not only in financial terms but in removing staff from other areas, not to mention that sanitation specialists probably can't be just replaced like that, because their knowledge is too technical, hence their having the job in the first place.
I see no problem at all, except for government or companies unwilling to collect rubbish, provide sanitation, and/or provide proper pay for those who do such important jobs.
If you're saying that the only reason for strike is protest against objectively poor pay, you're either naive, lying, or stupid. What you don't seem to have any conception of is the massive power you are investing in groups of people.

You assume bad faith on part of the employer. It would be economically rational to pay your staff well, because you'd attract the best staff and outcompete everyone else. But you assume capito bastards are just so inherently malevolent they will not do this, and hence unions are necessary. But at the same time, you assume the inherent spirit of the noble worker is so overridingly benevolent that they will never strike for petty or unreasonable grounds, despite the fact they'd simply be exhibiting exactly the same feature of human nature you've already identified in doing so, and that such occurrances have been observed.
But that's up to your nation, of course. Your responsibility.
I really wish it were, but it's your interminably awful resolution that's wrenched it out of our hands.

It's interesting to see the logic being used to defend this resolution by its author.

It's interesting to see the logic of the people who defend this repeal. What isn't untrue or made up is misrepresented and taken out of context. I'm relieved to see that even nations which object to unions are against this repeal because they object even more to the way this repeal is written.

The arguments that have been given for this resolution and against this repeal remain unanswered. The explanation of the resolution remains unchallenged. All that remains for the people behind this repeal seems to be mud throwing.

I see the UN hasn't improved during my absence. Pity.

I see the UN hasn't improved during my absence. Pity.

Ah, but how could it possibly have improved without your glorious presence here to guide us? :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The arguments that have been given for this resolution and against this repeal remain unanswered.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to answer "all resolutions from the IDU are inherently wonderful".

Beyond that, the argument you seem to be presenting is that this resolution is good simply because unions are good and all else follows. It doesn't. Your resolution grants the blanket and absolute right of all unions, no matter what their scope of representation, to endanger in actions that endanger people's lives. Not being a great fan of innocent people being indiscriminately killed, I guess I can't phrase my objection any more eloquently than "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?"
All that remains for the people behind this repeal seems to be mud throwing.
Yeah, I agree. I'm throwing mud - at someone who richly deserves it.
I see the UN hasn't improved during my absence. Pity.
In one respect it has: it lacked you. That really was a plus.

And the spectre of the labour activist encouraging privatisation of public services is intensely amusing.

Why? Labour unions are perfectly fine in a capitalist society. A market is a market, whether it's about goods or about employment does not matter.

(replacing workers)
At a cost, not only in financial terms but in removing staff from other areas,

Yes, nobody said it would be easy. But it's possible. If you dislike unions, if you do not want workers to be able to fight for their rights, then say so. But don't go on about this nonsense and basically say "I don't want workers to have any power to achieve their goals". Be honest.

not to mention that sanitation specialists probably can't be just replaced like that, because their knowledge is too technical, hence their having the job in the first place.

So if they quit their jobs, your sanitation simply stops working? That's not a very clever way of setting up your sanitation system, making it so dependent on a few skilled workers. In that case unions aren't the problem, the way the system works is. Don't blame unions for your mistakes.

If you're saying that the only reason for strike is protest against objectively poor pay, you're either naive, lying, or stupid. What you don't seem to have any conception of is the massive power you are investing in groups of people.

I do have a conception of that power. But they need that power because otherwise they have no position to counter the massive power of employers. That's not just for wages, but also for working conditions, and many other things related to work (legal help, education, pensions, etc). I'm not going to give an exhaustive list everytime I mention unions, sorry.

You assume bad faith on part of the employer. It would be economically rational to pay your staff well, because you'd attract the best staff and outcompete everyone else. But you assume capito bastards are just so inherently malevolent they will not do this, and hence unions are necessary. But at the same time, you assume the inherent spirit of the noble worker is so overridingly benevolent that they will never strike for petty or unreasonable grounds, despite the fact they'd simply be exhibiting exactly the same feature of human nature you've already identified in doing so, and that such occurrances have been observed.

Generally, if workers are paid well, there is no problem. Unions only need to deal with minor things. Strikes rarely happen.

But you don't make laws for when everything goes right. A law or in this case a resolution is tested on when it goes wrong. When workers are underpaid, for example. Or when conditions are bad. When there are massive lay-offs. An individual worker has no power against a corporation in such a case. That doesn't have to be because an employer is evil, and I really dislike the way you seem to describe honest business(wo)men. It's just that people cost a lot, and it's reasonable for any company that wishes to make a profit to try to reduce those costs as much as possible. At the same time a worker should get something back for the labour they give to employers, and that has to be enough to eat, travel to work, have a house, etc. Conflicting interests.

By giving workers the right to organise themselves (and that tends to be called a union), you give them the possibility to get what they are worth. And that's what the resolution does. It gives people a right to do something, not a duty to destroy the system. A proper union will understand that, and will understand that going on strike is not always (rarely, even) the best option. You can't ask more than what you're worth. For public safety, there are some exemptions to how people might fight for their rights.

All the resolution does is:
- grant the right to join of form a union
- grant the right to go on strike, with exceptions (and provides an alternative for those exceptions)
- makes sure unions aren't interfered with by anti-union governments
- makes sure corporations can't discriminate based on union-membership
- explicitely states that unions have to follow the law

That's it. Quite balanced, really, especially compaired to the resolution it replaced. There are checks and balances. There is no mandatory membership of unions, no-one is forced to go on strike.

Why should people joining a union be a problem? Why shouldn't workers be able to get organised, and take action if they are mistreated? Why that mistrust?

Ah, but how could it possibly have improved without your glorious presence here to guide us?

Well, you could have done something.

Or you could create proper laws protecting workers, so they don't need to form or join unions. Up to you. Don't you love the freedom the UN gives you?

Like the freedom to pass laws like Individual Working Freedoms. Screw the unions, the people have the power to negotiate their working terms all on their own. If you really like the unions, the people also have the power to acquire representation and counsel for these negotiations. How's that for a proper law protecting workers?


IC: We were still awaiting a response from the honoured representative of David6 to our last return of argument to him, or indeed any of the points that we successfully argued against the honoured representative from Kivisto. For the avoidance of doubt, we will attempt to assemble the relevant points and summarised preceding arguments some time later today.

OOC: Sorry for the delayed response. RL called me away for a time. Decent job on the point summary, btw. Saves us the time of rehashing those points.

Firemen on strike directly endanger people's lives.

Nope. The fire does. Firemen are on strike? Don't start fires. There, that was easy. Probably even easier and more practical than closing down all your airports and railroads.

Firstly, they needn't be in the hands of government.

It doesn't matter whose control they're under when the union decides to strike.

Secondly, they can be replaced by other people.

So your new stance is that you can avoid all union issues by simply replacing the people striking. Genius! Oh, wait. In many nations that actually care about the well-being of their workers, sanitation and waste disposal workers are required to be certified in the handling of Hazardous Materials, which requires special training and equipment. Nope, they can't just be replaced.

I see no problem at all, except for government or companies unwilling to collect rubbish, provide sanitation,

See the above comment. You really shouldn't be letting just anybody handle potentially hazardous materials. People could get hurt. It's irresponsible of you to even suggest it.

and/or provide proper pay for those who do such important jobs.

There's more to unions than money. You are aware of that, aren't you? You are aware that unions are just as capable of irrational requests and positions as national governments.

But that's up to your nation, of course. Your responsibility.

And as such, maybe we should return a little bit of that control back to those who are apparently responsible for it.

True, but looking at the vote, many don't seem to understand that this repeal consists of lies and misrepresenatations.

I must admit, the phrase "Alarmist Pettifoggery" really tickled my fancy. I agree that much of the language of the repeal is rather overblown. The basic premise of it and some of its constituent arguments remain basically true.

As for the mud-slinging....you've been here before, you are already familiar with the way that the people that attend these debates deal with each other. By even making the attempt at moral superiority regarding the mud, you are inviting the mud to be slung. Maybe it isn't correct behaviour, but it is behaviour that you should already be well-acquainted enough to avoid. I'm left believing that you mention it quite on purpose to incite the mud in such a way that you can stand back and say "they started it". On the internet, if you were to check out some of the discussion forums, you would see that they refer to that sort of thing as "flame-baiting". It's generally considered unacceptable behaviour, escpecially from one as experienced as you are. You should know better, sir.

Well, you could have done something.

I did improve the UN. I killed Sheik Larebil (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11881792&postcount=48).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

For some odd, unexplainable reason I get the feeling I have done this before. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12357055#post12357056)

Firemen on strike directly endanger people's lives.

The roadrunner runs off of the road and stands on thin air. The cyotee complains that he is defying the law of gravity. The roadrunner replies that he never studied law. Goot, apparently has never studied any form of common sense.

The key problem is actually the second part of the clause, "Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;" Does a fireman count as a similiar situation to that of medical or police? Actually how does a strike of parking meter readers or physical therepasts "directly endanger the life of anyone?" Why do people think if they can throw together two clauses that don't have any relation to each other it will all work out?

Common sense demands that when a strike "directly" endanger's life it must do so directly, through the physical action of the strike itself. If the absense of work constitutes the direct action of a strike then what about vacation time or sick time?

Normally this would not be a problem and normally this would not even be a reasonable objection. One can give a plethora of examples of indirect endangerment of life. One can simply define all indirect endangerment as direct endangerment. One can also go "nah nah" and simply not engage in any reasonable debate.

For some odd, unexplainable reason I get the feeling I have done this before. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12357055#post12357056)

OOC: It's like deja vu all over again.

/Yogi Berra

It's interesting to see the logic of the people who defend this repeal. What isn't untrue or made up is misrepresented and taken out of context. I'm relieved to see that even nations which object to unions are against this repeal because they object even more to the way this repeal is written.

Irrelevant. Just because the repeal authors engaged in mischaracterization doesn't mean that the defenders of the resolution should. The fact that a wide variety of nations are opposing this on those grounds should be enough; the sanctimonious harping and IDU-wank is completely unnecessary.

The arguments that have been given for this resolution and against this repeal remain unanswered. The explanation of the resolution remains unchallenged. All that remains for the people behind this repeal seems to be mud throwing.

Sure, the representatives from David6 have not explained their puzzlingly twisted repeal. The first six pages of the debate transcript clearly show that everyone agrees on that point.

I see the UN hasn't improved during my absence. Pity.

How mature.

Most courteously,

*snip*

"In other words, the resolution in question grants permission to all strikes, except those by (A) the armed forces (B) those not authorized by unions, and (C) those which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation. This means that if there is a strike that is indirectly severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, or public well being, or indirectly endanger the lives of citizens of a nation, it is still legal and must remain legal provided it does not endanger the lives of citizens in a nation directly.

"Some examples of this include...
air-traffic controllers
firemen
certain railroad employees
government employees
A strike of air-traffic controllers is potentially very dangerous, but does not directly endanger the lives of citizens. If firemen went on strike, property, and much worse, human lives, would be lost. This strike would indirectly (the firemen are endangering lives by not saving them) endanger human lives, not directly endanger them, and would thus be legal under the resolution in question. If the railroad employees who, say, fixed tracks and warned drivers of broken tracks went on strike, civilian life would be lost. These strikers, however, are indirectly endangering human lives; it is the broken track that directly endangers life. This strike is legal even though it destroys civilian lives. If certain government employees went on strike, countries could lapse into violence and anarchy, with no illegal initating action. Under the resolution in question "The Right to Form Unions," all this can happen, legally--due to clause 8 no nation can prevent it.

OOC: I will post the defense of the other points later, maybe tonight or maybe tomorrow, my space bar is broken, which makes it very time consuming and tedious to write.

I'm sorry, but your definitions of "direct" and "indirect" need help. If a fire brigade goes on strike and something burns down, killing someone, I'd say that's pretty damned direct. Same goes for air-traffic control.

You're reaching sir, and it's not flattering to the perception of your parliamentary prowess.

Is in not unreasonable to say that what constitutes a "direct" hazard is up to the several nations themselves? Yes. Must every resolution spell out every conceivable possibility? No.

I appreciate your efforts, sir, but the net effect is more arguments that are specious at best and misinformed at worst.

Sink this repeal.

Firstly, they needn't be in the hands of government.

Secondly, they can be replaced by other people.

I see no problem at all, except for government or companies unwilling to collect rubbish, provide sanitation, and/or provide proper pay for those who do such important jobs.

But that's up to your nation, of course. Your responsibility.



Thanks :) I'd hoped for a more quiet comeback, though.



True, but looking at the vote, many don't seem to understand that this repeal consists of lies and misrepresenatations.

OOC/RL: In fact, in every city I've ever lived in, waste collection is performed by private companies. Waste Management Systems and Rubatino in the greater Seattle Area, and just Waste Management Inc. in Bismarck.

It's interesting to see the logic being used to defend this resolution by its author.

In other words, ignore all other flaws in the document, and vote based on ideological knee-jerkism instead of practical considerations of legislative effect.

*snip the rest*


You make valid points, and you make them with surprising restraint, given the vitriol that must surely be boiling the choleric humors in your spleen. I'd be a bit defensive if a resolution I'd managed to steer through to passage was being repealed, but I wouldn't be quite so smug about it. Well chastened.

But your personal issues with GG aside, can you illuminate the bolded statement for me, please? What "legislative effect" do you mean?

It's interesting to see the logic of the people who defend this repeal. What isn't untrue or made up is misrepresented and taken out of context. I'm relieved to see that even nations which object to unions are against this repeal because they object even more to the way this repeal is written.

The arguments that have been given for this resolution and against this repeal remain unanswered. The explanation of the resolution remains unchallenged. All that remains for the people behind this repeal seems to be mud throwing.

I see the UN hasn't improved during my absence. Pity.

Ah, but how could it possibly have improved without your glorious presence here to guide us? :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Yeah, it's pretty hard to answer "all resolutions from the IDU are inherently wonderful".

Beyond that, the argument you seem to be presenting is that this resolution is good simply because unions are good and all else follows. It doesn't. Your resolution grants the blanket and absolute right of all unions, no matter what their scope of representation, to endanger in actions that endanger people's lives. Not being a great fan of innocent people being indiscriminately killed, I guess I can't phrase my objection any more eloquently than "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?"

Yeah, I agree. I'm throwing mud - at someone who richly deserves it.

In one respect it has: it lacked you. That really was a plus.

Is all this really happening? Can we please knock off the personal horseshit and get on with the actual issue at hand, please?

OOC/RL: In fact, in every city I've ever lived in, waste collection is performed by private companies. Waste Management Systems and Rubatino in the greater Seattle Area, and just Waste Management Inc. in Bismarck.

OOC: Yep, that's true in America. Groot is actually from the Low Countries, I think, so it might be a different situation over there.

IC:

On most planets in the Empire, waste managements is handled by private companies. We have very strict anti-monopoly laws as well as restrictions on union monopolization, so it's not every often that we run into non-collection problems, unless the government wants to make a point to some non-compliant cities.

This brings an interesting question to my mind- how do unions fit into international monopolies? We don't allow any groups to form monopolies, including unions, but the international federation clauses in the resolution seemingly allow international monopolies of labor. How do we resolve this?

Most courteously,

I'm sorry, but your definitions of "direct" and "indirect" need help. If a fire brigade goes on strike and something burns down, killing someone, I'd say that's pretty damned direct. Same goes for air-traffic control.Actually, that's the very definition of "indirect." "Direct" means I stab you; "indirect" means I sold the knife that was plunged into your chest. In your example, you'd actually have to start the fire, or be somehow responsible for it, to have inflicted "direct" harm. Do you understand the distinction?

Actually, that's the very definition of "indirect." "Direct" means I stab you; "indirect" means I sold the knife that was plunged into your chest. In your example, you'd actually have to start the fire, or be somehow responsible for it, to have inflicted "direct" harm. Do you understand the distinction?

Yes, but with entites like firefighters and police, there's such thing as malfeasance or non-feasance which make their failure to respond to an emergency a crime. If their strike is illegal, it doesn't fall within the claims of the repeal, but the resolution.

OOC: Yep, that's true in America. Groot is actually from the Low Countries, I think, so it might be a different situation over there.

IC:

On most planets in the Empire, waste managements is handled by private companies. We have very strict anti-monopoly laws as well as restrictions on union monopolization, so it's not every often that we run into non-collection problems, unless the government wants to make a point to some non-compliant cities.

This brings an interesting question to my mind- how do unions fit into international monopolies? We don't allow any groups to form monopolies, including unions, but the international federation clauses in the resolution seemingly allow international monopolies of labor. How do we resolve this?

Most courteously,

OOC: This is the kind of post that makes me wish I were a Civics or US Government / Poli-Sci teacher and could use NS in a classroom. Outstanding extrapolation, man!

IC: Uh...I got nothin'. My background in law is Aesthetic/Copyright law. I'd have to summon the Intangible Minister of Labor to even attempt an answer.

Yes, but with entites like firefighters and police, there's such thing as malfeasance or non-feasance which make their failure to respond to an emergency a crime.Doesn't make them "directly" responsible; in fact, negligence is mostly indirect responsibility.

If their strike is illegal, it doesn't fall within the claims of the repeal, but the resolution.Nope. Under this resolution, their strike is inherently legal.

As opposed to your hyperbole?

This is the UN. What, you want me to whip out an assault rifle? It's called democracy.

It can only do that if you choose to allow such to happen in your nation. This repeal would leave the question of whether or not to allow unionisation in your nation. If the repeal passes, you can still keep your unions.

Oh, is that unnecessary repetition I see? I thought you were against "absurd rhetoric"!


"Tyrannical"? More ridiculous rhetoric. There's nothing tyrannical about this repeal. In fact, repealing the resolution gives your nation even more freedom.

Firstly, it's not my nation's workers I'm worried about, it's profit driven nations' workers - without the right to unionize they are powerless against their employers.

If you don't want that, then make sure you prevent it in your own nation. Do you need the UN to wipe your ass for you, too?

I'd like to refer you to my previous point. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Uh...where have you seen these promises? I must've missed them.

If you went back to the debates on the other repeal resolutions, I'm sure you'd see that their justification has almost always been that they'd write a better one later.

You could always try writing one yourself. But I suppose it's easier simply to rant about tyranny and fascism instead.

I am writing one. Please, feel free to vote against it when it comes up.

You're not really even clear on what fascism is, are you?

I'd be much obliged if you'd give me your comprehensive definition.
Of course I don't know what fascism is! No-one does, especially if you believe that fascism began with Mussolini, as he had a very confused ideology. One thing in common with all fascist states, however, is that they outlaw strikes, and without international controls, this is bound to happen.

No, it's a vote for national sovereignty, a concept which you obviously haven't grasped.

Oh please, not this tired-out argument again! Is ignoring the problems of the world in the sake of such an archaic notion as national sovreignty really justified? You obviously don't care about anyone outside your borders.

Cluichstan is a level-headed democracy (well, mostly). We're voting against. Your silly tirade here certainly did not convince us to change our position.

Likewise.

Violence? You want to see violence?

I will not debase myself by fighting with a brutish cad in the General Assembly.

OOC: Oh, and good luck trying to defenestrate Colonel Ignatius- he's no pushover!

This is the UN. What, you want me to whip out an assault rifle? It's called democracy.

And what you're spewing is called mindless, hyperbolic drivel.

Firstly, it's not my nation's workers I'm worried about, it's profit driven nations' workers - without the right to unionize they are powerless against their employers.

Why don't you concern yourself with your citizens, and we'll concern ourselves with our, mmm'kay?

Oh, and of course, those evil "profit-driven nations"... :rolleyes:

I'd like to refer you to my previous point. I see no reason to repeat myself.

That's all you've been doing.

If you went back to the debates on the other repeal resolutions, I'm sure you'd see that their justification has almost always been that they'd write a better one later.

I suggest you look back yourself.

I am writing one.

You do that.

Please, feel free to vote against it when it comes up.

I can pretty much guarantee I will.

I'd be much obliged if you'd give me your comprehensive definition.
Of course I don't know what fascism is! No-one does, especially if you believe that fascism began with Mussolini, as he had a very confused ideology. One thing in common with all fascist states, however, is that they outlaw strikes, and without international controls, this is bound to happen.

Outlawing strikes =/= Fascism.

Oh please, not this tired-out argument again! Is ignoring the problems of the world in the sake of such an archaic notion as national sovreignty really justified? You obviously don't care about anyone outside your borders.

See no reason to. People outside the borders of Cluichstan didn't elect the government of Cluichstan. We're bound to serve their interests alone. Honestly, I couldn't give two shits about the people in your wretched country.

I will not debase myself by fighting with a brutish cad in the General Assembly.

Nah, you're simply incapable of it. Thus, you decide to back out of the debate, because you've got nothing to say of any substance, choosing instead to resort to namecalling. Well played. :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Oh, and good luck trying to defenestrate Colonel Ignatius- he's no pushover!

OOC: Already done.

The Republic of Libranistan has decided to vote against this resolution, as the reasoning stated for repealing UNR #149 has zero factual basis.

Libranistan can not support legislation whose justification is based solely on flights of fancy and gross misinterpretation.

Is in not unreasonable to say that what constitutes a "direct" hazard is up to the several nations themselves? Yes. Must every resolution spell out every conceivable possibility? No.


Were it entirely within the hands of nations, I would agree that reasonable nation theory would apply. However, this legislation very clearly deals with those who are not in the employ of the government, those who will hire expensive lawyers to go over any pertinent laws regarding industrial actions to find any loophole that they can abuse. When these lawyers get their hands on RTFU to see how it might benefit their union clients, you can bet that anything that could possibly be grossly misinterpretted and abused is likely to. Why? Because the law will not be getting interpretted by a "reasonable nation". It will be getting interpretted by someone getting paid to ensure that their client(s) have the maximum amount of freedom to do as they please.

It's called democracy.

Actually, this is a debate.

Firstly, it's not my nation's workers I'm worried about, it's profit driven nations' workers - without the right to unionize they are powerless against their employers.

They are not powerless. They still have Individual Working Freedoms. Look it up.

If you went back to the debates on the other repeal resolutions, I'm sure you'd see that their justification has almost always been that they'd write a better one later.

Let's start at the beginning

Axis of Evil (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7330629&postcount=79): suggests different legislation, but not a replacement
Scientific Freedom (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960296&postcount=154): No mention of replacement
Education For All (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8616453&postcount=96): No replacement promised
DVD Removal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875389&postcount=126): Nothin'
CRR (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960320&postcount=158): Thank God, No.
Keep the World Disease Free (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11762086&postcount=177): No replacement offered.
Gay Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394932&postcount=145): Nope.
Mandatory Recycling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394776&postcount=140): Doesn't offer or promise, simply remains open to the possibilities.
Elimination Of Bio Weapons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384750&postcount=109): Mentions replacement.
RBH (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8873901&postcount=103): Nope.
Replanting Trees (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421273&postcount=162): No.
Due Process (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12131349&postcount=190): Nope.
Stop Dumping (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394873&postcount=143): Nada.
WHL (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12039396&postcount=189): Offered replacement, submitted replacement, replacement was rejected by the masses.
Right Of Labour Unions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394896&postcount=144): Far from offer a replacement, it states that nations should figure unions out for themselves.
Legalize Euthanasia (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421285&postcount=163): Did not want a replacement.
UCPL (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042672&postcount=134): Did not offer one, but believed it was possible.
Legalize Prostitution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8012717&postcount=88): no promises of any kind (btw - the link to the repeal from the original reso redirects you back to the reso)
Save The Forests Of The World (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394710&postcount=138): No replacement mentioned
UNEC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12270690&postcount=197): Nothing
40 Hr Workweek (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421319&postcount=166): Zero
Public Domain (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973226&postcount=187): Bupkiss
Abortion Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10540269&postcount=146): Giant 0
Law Of The Sea (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394842&postcount=142): Doesn't promise or offer a replacement. It begs for one, but doesn't offer it up.
Definition of Marriage (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11663197&postcount=174): Nothing.
Support Hemp (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11762090&postcount=178): Nope.
Global Library (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8303719&postcount=94): Swing and a Miss.
National Systems of Tax (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385131&postcount=113): Assures us of a replacement
Protection of Dolphins (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875441&postcount=130): Nope.
UNWCC (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973202&postcount=182): no
Chemical Weapons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692871&postcount=121): no
Solar Panels (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875378&postcount=125): no
Right To Divorce (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394694&postcount=137): no
HIAA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973221&postcount=186): no


I think that's all of them. By my count, nearly every single passed repeal has not, in any way shape or form, promised, offered, or hinted at any form of replacement. So, no. Remember that what is said about intent in debate is completely irrelevant to the legislation. Look to the texts.

Of course I don't know what fascism is!

Lost your dictionary?

No-one does,

Speak for yourself.

especially if you believe that fascism began with Mussolini, as he had a very confused ideology.

Then you do believe that you have some knowledge of fascism? One way or the other, son.

One thing in common with all fascist states, however, is that they outlaw strikes,

Wrong. One thing in common with all fascist states is that they all believe in the purification of the species.

and without international controls, this is bound to happen.

If A then B just doesn't fly.

Oh please, not this tired-out argument again! Is ignoring the problems of the world in the sake of such an archaic notion as national sovreignty really justified? You obviously don't care about anyone outside your borders.

We do care. Well, some do. The basic belief is that a single catch all legislation won't often work well for local matters within the multitude of different cultures and ideologies.

edit: I ain't doin anybody else's homework for this discussion, my eyes hurt

Firstly, it's not my nation's workers I'm worried about, it's profit driven nations' workers - without the right to unionize they are powerless against their employers.

What is different: the profit-driven nation or the profit-driven worker?

If you went back to the debates on the other repeal resolutions, I'm sure you'd see that their justification has almost always been that they'd write a better one later.

Schwarzchild? Is that you?

I am writing one. Please, feel free to vote against it when it comes up.

Okay.

I'd be much obliged if you'd give me your comprehensive definition.
Of course I don't know what fascism is! No-one does, especially if you believe that fascism began with Mussolini, as he had a very confused ideology. One thing in common with all fascist states, however, is that they outlaw strikes, and without international controls, this is bound to happen.

One thing in common with all fascist states is that national production and economy is used for the greater advancement of the state- quite similarly to state communism. Although most enterprises are owned by private individuals, these enterprises are highly quotaed, regulated, and controlled by the government. Further, the government controls most raw materials.

This is very similar to hardline communist states, which actually own all the means of production. Fascism's not that different from communism, now is it?

Oh please, not this tired-out argument again! Is ignoring the problems of the world in the sake of such an archaic notion as national sovreignty really justified?

Oh please, not this tired-out argument again! Is ignoring the problems of your own people for the sake of such an archaic notion as internationalism really justified?

See, I can do it too.


You obviously don't care about anyone outside your borders.

Not unless they want to submit to the glorious rule of our Most Divine Emperor. Before that, they're just barbarians.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Getting Very Pissed Off

One thing in common with all fascist states is that national production and economy is used for the greater advancement of the state- quite similarly to state communism. Although most enterprises are owned by private individuals, these enterprises are highly quotaed, regulated, and controlled by the government. Further, the government controls most raw materials.

This is very similar to hardline communist states, which actually own all the means of production. Fascism's not that different from communism, now is it?


Not to get too sidetracked, but I think you're confusing Fascism with Nazi'ism. The Nazi party was a socialist labour party. While they remained within a capitalist system even when in power, they were fairly communist in economic treatment.

edit: Godwin's Law claims another victim. So very, very tragic

Not to get too sidetracked, but I think you're confusing Fascism with Nazi'ism. The Nazi party was a socialist labour party. While they remained within a capitalist system even when in power, they were fairly communist in economic treatment.

edit: Godwin's Law claims another victim. So very, very tragic


OOC: The Nazis were also Fascists, if only National Socialists in name. "National Socialist" refers more to the policies of nationalism than anything else- German industry, like I said, was owned by private indiviiduals (Krupp, Thyssen, etc.), but most of those people were either Nazis themselves or worker very closely with the government. Their social agenda was also very similar to that of other Fascist nations- persecution of communists and left-wingers ala Spain and Italy, and racial superiority.

Also, Hitler wrote fan letters to Mussolini in the 20s.

Sure, it's not really material to the discussion, but I like to sound smart. :D

OOC: The Nazis were also Fascists, if only National Socialists in name. "National Socialist" refers more to the policies of nationalism than anything else- German industry, like I said, was owned by private individuals (Krupp, Thyssen, etc.), but most of those people were either Nazis themselves or worker very closely with the government. Their social agenda was also very similar to that of other Fascist nations- persecution of communists and left-wingers ala Spain and Italy, and racial superiority.

Also, Hitler wrote fan letters to Mussolini in the 20s.

Sure, it's not really material to the discussion, but I like to sound smart. :D

Fair enough, my friend. I was just making the point that you can be a fascist without being a nazi.

This brings an interesting question to my mind- how do unions fit into international monopolies? We don't allow any groups to form monopolies, including unions, but the international federation clauses in the resolution seemingly allow international monopolies of labor. How do we resolve this?

By allowing everybody to form a union.

Fortunately, there is such a resolution already in place. :)

By allowing everybody to form a union.

Fortunately, there is such a resolution already in place.
There's a resolution giving a blanket right to form monopolies? Where?

Schwarzchild? Is that you?

I've voted and stated my position. This is between you two, don't bring me into this "debate."

Lynniston
CoS

Nye

For some odd, unexplainable reason I get the feeling I have done this before. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12357055#post12357056)

For some odd, inexplicable reason we get the feeling that you left much unanswered on that occasion. It remains unanswered. Please do not allow trivial repetition to prevent you from rectifying that state of affairs.

Hack.

I appreciate your reply as to the legitamacy of David6's campaign tactics. It IS to be noted that I actually replied to his initial telegram asking for endorsement for his repeal when it was still a proposal with a definite NO, that the International Communist Union would never support this repeal, and gave my reasons why. To then receive a FURTHER telegram after I cast my vote against when it passed quorum and is at vote, I regard this as harassment. I do not know if this is legitimate behaviour upon David6's part according to the game regs, however it certainly is rude and impolite and detrimental to the proposer's resolution. Take note all those who use telegrams to push their proposals/resolutions at vote - there is a thing called tact and diplomacy, alienating oneself through pestering Delegates who have already indicated previously that they will vote against does nothing to further your cause.

On my supposed waving around my age and status in the real world, I note that the Esteemed Delegate from Cluichstan is allowed to in both OOC and IC modes casually abuse other UN members during debate. Oddly enough, I objected to being told "Run along kid" and unfortunately descended to his level in reply.

On fascism, it is true what my colleague Leninia-Trotskya says, it is difficult to define what fascism IS. Or was. Certainly, Fascism was an ideology espoused by Mussolini - however, if even learned academics of international repute with decades-standing authority in the area disagree on the tenets of small f fascism as we understand it (or not) today, Leninia-Trotskya is indeed correct.

Before Cluichstan tries to defenestrate me (again - I believe the last time was three months ago) please be aware that due to the advanced science of Minyos we have anti-gravity repulsors, I shall simply float gently to the ground. In fact it is quite a pleasant experience...defenestrate away anyone, it will deposit me directly into a beautiful garden full of native Minyonian vegetation, and I will happily take a stroll and a break from the onerous duties of managing our beautiful nation.

Iain. (Minyos - ICU UN Delegate, Defense Minister, WLWA Global Moderator)

The Republic of Athanian recognizes many of the good points made on both sides of this argument. However, we wish that the current repeal be struck down and a new, clear, and accurate one be drafted.

After that, perhaps a more clear resolution for the organization of unions may be created and hopefully passed.

Our nation also may take it upon ourselves to attempt a new repeal, any advice on what should be included is welcome.


One more comment. The representative from David6 initially left his argument unfinished. The fact that he then edited it, and then proceeded to make a post that implied that he wrote the whole argument the first time is not a good thing to do.

Alexander Kerro,
Temporary UN Representative for Athanian

Yeah, I am going to finish my argument soon.

A bit busy with ACCEL right now though. We've had so many applications recently.

Also, you will see another repeal attempt within the next month or so.

By the way, to the people who post on this thread to bash me and try to get the mods to ban me--STOP. Everything I have done is legal, and I don't take kindly to those types of games.

The government of Pilot officially opposes this U.N. resolution and calls upon allies to organize and work toward its defeat.
The government of Yelda concurs. Also, welcome back Pilot.

no promises of any kind (btw - the link to the repeal from the original reso redirects you back to the reso)Fixed. Thanks.

To then receive a FURTHER telegram after I cast my vote against when it passed quorum and is at vote, I regard this as harassment.He asked you to support its quorum run, and then asked you to support it while at vote. That's not harassment; it's campaigning. He's sending a form-telegram to dozens of delegates. It's certainly possible that he never saw your reply, depending on the volume of responce he received. Telegram boxes only hold so many telegrams.


Take note all those who use telegrams to push their proposals/resolutions at vote - there is a thing called tact and diplomacy, alienating oneself through pestering Delegates who have already indicated previously that they will vote against does nothing to further your cause.So don't think highly of him. I hardly see how your personal opinion of him or his organization is a matter for the Moderators.

Oddly enough, I objected to being told "Run along kid" and unfortunately descended to his level in reply.Huh. I would have thought the mature thing to do would be to ignore his comments.

This reactionary piece of garbage will get nothing from me.

Hack.

Yes, it had occurred to me that the initial vote of delegates was a form letter, of course it was. However, my comments regarding others telegramming repeatedly in the future for their proposals/resolutions will NOT help their cause and just be regarded as spam were not a request for Moderator intervention.

As to Cluichstan, I have noticed that he is never reprimanded for anything he says, however disrespectful or rude. The cosiness between the mods and the UN hacks such as Cluichstan, Kivisto and others is not healthy and definitely not neutral. There are many regions with Delegates with 50+ endorsements that I am in regular contact with who disdain to converse in the UN forums for precisely this reason - they merely as I do vote on proposals and resolutions for their regions, and submit proposals which usually do not pass quorum because they are not in the clique, however well written. Basically, I am not going to suck ar*se to get respect in here, I do more than enough real-world activism to waste too much time in the UN forums. They can and are being used as propaganda for real life issues, and that is about the only real function I see in the proposals and resolutions in this game when there is this corruption within the NS UN itself.

I think we can end the topic there. I will not be checking this thread again.

By the way, it is response, not "responce". Basic English skills seem to be on the decline, however, this is not my fault. It is the degradation of the education system worldwide - propagated by economic rationalists that think that business is more important than society and withdrawal of funding from education, health and the arts.

Iain.

By the way, it is response, not "responce". Basic English skills seem to be on the decline, however, this is not my fault.Just had to have a parting shot, didn't you?

The Republic of Athanian recognizes many of the good points made on both sides of this argument. However, we wish that the current repeal be struck down and a new, clear, and accurate one be drafted.

Ahem... is the promise of a replacement resolution peeking its head around the corner? Just because it doesn't say it in the resolution, doesn't mean it wasn't discussed.

Our nation also may take it upon ourselves to attempt a new repeal, any advice on what should be included is welcome.

I offer my wholehearted support, should it be necessary.

Another thing- please, please come up with your own arguments for once, instead of endlessly quoting previous posts just to tear them to shreds (I admit, I did do this once, to level with Cliuchistan - it should have been left there). Rest assured that as far as I am concerned this argument is over. Can we move on now?

The cosiness between the mods and the UN hacks such as Cluichstan, Kivisto and others is not healthy and definitely not neutral.

*Looks at Sheik Nadnerb. Looks at Accelerus. Looks at Vermi. Waaaaaayyyy up at Vermi. Considers the implications of cozying up together with them around a nice warm fire with some hot cocoa and a big blanket big enough for all four to wrap around themselves. Shudders*

No, no I don't see that happening anytime real soon. Not that I'd really forcefully decline *looking at the dragon* it's just unlikely to occur.

My associate, Oskar, who usually fills this chair, has been reprimanded for his tone and language in the past, as has the Sheik, I believe. We are aware of what constitutes acceptable behaviour within the General Assembly hall and try to remain within those lines. We have been known to fail and we are told to bring it back in line. When it happens, we steal a page from the book of PICKER, and continue on with our day. Nothing much to it really. Listen to the UN Secretariat when they say "Enough" and you get along pretty well.

OOC: Sorry, Fris, I don't mean to leave you out of that scene. I know I've seen what your rep's name is, but I can't recall it to memory.

OOC: Sorry, Fris, I don't mean to leave you out of that scene. I know I've seen what your rep's name is, but I can't recall it to memory.

OOC: If I remember correctly, it's MJ Donavan.

Ahem... is the promise of a replacement resolution peeking its head around the corner? Just because it doesn't say it in the resolution, doesn't mean it wasn't discussed.

If you're concerned, write a replacement yourself. I mean, I did it twice, over controversial items. Both still stand. In neither case did I support the repeal, or was I involved in the original resolution. If you want a replacement resolution to happen, it's best to draft it yourself.

If you're concerned, write a replacement yourself. I mean, I did it twice, over controversial items. Both still stand. In neither case did I support the repeal, or was I involved in the original resolution. If you want a replacement resolution to happen, it's best to draft it yourself.

*stands and applauds*

If there were more people in these halls that had that attitude, we would be able to eliminate half of the debate for every repeal that goes through these halls.

*stands and applauds*

Ta :)

If there were more people in these halls that had that attitude, we would be able to eliminate half of the debate for every repeal that goes through these halls.

Well, no, because the replacement might not be to the liking of others, so they'll be against the repeal anyway. They'll just no longer say "where's the replacement?", they'll say "I don't like the replacement".

I mean, if we couldn't argue, what's the point of the UN? ;)

Byrnsido votes a strong "aye", and soon the entire region will be voting as such.

This is a step towards ridding the world of unions, which have long served their purpose.

I'm sorry, but your definitions of "direct" and "indirect" need help. If a fire brigade goes on strike and something burns down, killing someone, I'd say that's pretty damned direct. Same goes for air-traffic control.

You may. You may indeed. I on the other hand would probably be the first one to protest anyone who was moronic enough to even suggest that such a thing is "direct." I'm sorry but I have a hard time to accept that inaction is a direct cause of anything. There is far too much in legal precident about what is direct and what is not direct. Any proper court of law would throw out any case of attempting that the death in a fire was the "direct" result of a fireman not showing up to fight the fire.

It is with purely official sadness that I report to this Assembly that the members of the Federal Congress have all gone on strike, demanding better pay and work conditions, apparently since no one bothered to inform those dumbasses that if they wanted a pay-raise so bad, all they need to do is vote themselves one. As the Kennyites all celebrate their corrupt leaders' unexpected walkout -- meaning they won't soon be passing any more boneheaded legislation protecting the gnatcatcher, approving tax deductions for breathing hot air, and making May Official Karmicarian Slut History Month or whatever -- I should also note that the standing legislation we are considering repealing would have harmful effects on public health and safety should workers who actually matter decide to walk out on their jobs, including, but not limited to: firefighters, sanitation employees, safety engineers, air-traffic controllers, health inspectors, railroad employees, utility workers, federal employees, etc. etc., none of whom -- take that, Clause 3 Believers! -- are covered under Right to Form Unions' prohibition against strikes that "directly endanger" the lives of our citizens. Such a potential detriment to the maintenance of our national infrastructure and our people's well-being is simply unacceptable, in our informed judgment, and as such the Federal Republic has voted for this repeal.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm sorry but I have a hard time to accept that inaction is a direct cause of anything.

We understand that the good Dr Asimov would disagree with you to a considerable extent. We have no information on the likely opinions of the evil Dr Asimov.

I should also note that the standing legislation we are considering repealing would have harmful effects on public health and safety should workers who actually matter decide to walk out on their jobs, including, but not limited to: firefighters, sanitation employees, safety engineers, air-traffic controllers, health inspectors, railroad employees, utility workers, federal employees, etc. etc., none of whom -- take that, Clause 3 Believers! -- are covered under Right to Form Unions' prohibition against strikes that "directly endanger" the lives of our citizens.

Because that isn't necessary. The air-traffic controllers have appeared again, without contradicting my previous arguments: don't let planes go up when your air-traffic controlers are on strike. Simple. It will be inconvenient, but hey, that's the point of a strike. Same for railroad employees, although of course they can include the catering people and any nation would crawl to a standstill if the coffee isn't delivered on the train.

Health inspectors, I mean, why? They inspect, they don't operate themselves. Federal employees - oh I'm sure people don't mind if your economic policy makers are on strike for a few years.

In short: yes, a strike is inconvenient, it may cost money. Employers have a "weapon": fire people. Employees don't, except in the cases of specialist knowledge in which case they can threaten to find another job just as easily as going on strike. This resolution isn't written for that last group because they already are in a position of power against their employers. The rest isn't, and they need to be able to threaten with something to be able to stand up for their rights.

And even then. The last clause of the resolution clearly states that the law is there just as well for unions as for other people.
8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

If a strike would be too dangerous, you can use the independent arbitration to try to resolve the conflict. What you cannot do is write laws that only allow people of over 80 years old with blonde hair to go on strike. What you can do in most nations is convict people who are guilty of negligence or of an action which caused the death of someone. A strike isn't something you just do, without any reason.

While that's the best news I've heard all day, I'm bemused as to why you bothered saying it. Oh, smug goading...of course.Just like I'm not sure why you saw fit to post this response either, Gruenberg.

While that's the best news I've heard all day, I'm bemused as to why you bothered saying it. Oh, smug goading...of course.
Just like I'm not sure why you saw fit to post this response either, Gruenberg.

Alright! We get it! Enough Already! Mr Madison from QoD has a low opinion of the people from Hirota. The people from Hirota are completely incapable of distinguishing the people of QoD from Gruenbergers. I'm beginning to see why Quintessence of Dust is not a fan of Hirota. Nothing against the Gruenbergers, but not many of us would enjoy being referred to as something other than what we are.

As a polite request, could this sniping occur somewhere outside of the GA. Or at least try to stay on topic with them.

OOC: Seriously Hirota, QoD has kept it completely in character. You could at least do him the courtesy of responding in kind. The two nations are separate IC entities and should be treated as such. There has already been a discussion or two over this elsewhere and all you're doing is inciting an argument over something you should know better than to do.

OOC: Seriously Hirota, QoD has kept it completely in character. You could at least do him the courtesy of responding in kind. The two nations are separate IC entities and should be treated as such. There has already been a discussion or two over this elsewhere and all you're doing is inciting an argument over something you should know better than to do.

OOC: It would be better if the two of you just didn't talk to each other (or at each other, as the case may be) at all. It's getting a touch tiresome, and doesn't reflect well on either of you.

OOC: It would be better if the two of you just didn't talk to each other (or at each other, as the case may be) at all. It's getting a touch tiresome, and doesn't reflect well on either of you.

OOC:.....I was the one trying to get between the two of them...

OOC:.....I was the one trying to get between the two of them...

OOC: Oh, I know...I meant them, not you. I'm just going to shut up now.

The transcript below is taken from the speech I gave to my fellow UN Members in the great region of Akaliko. I present this fragment here in the interest of defeating this legislation, for which I have cast my regional vote in a loud and clear NAY.

"I have just reviewed the latest resolution at vote in the UN. It is a venomous snake pit of lies, misdirection, and misrepresentation, designed to snatch rights away from the workers of our world and place them back into the hands of the power-hungry bourgeoisie who seek to reclaim them. I urge my fellow nations to vote "NAY" to this detestable scrawl of bourgeois arrogance!"

OOC: Seriously Hirota, QoD has kept it completely in character. You could at least do him the courtesy of responding in kind. The two nations are separate IC entities and should be treated as such. There has already been a discussion or two over this elsewhere and all you're doing is inciting an argument over something you should know better than to do.Yeah, but it's the same "person" behind them, who is incapable of detaching IC from OOC. Who is incapable of doing other than being a complete jerk.

I'm going to carry on till it stops. Tis that simple.

We'd like to echo the recent remarks of the representative of Kivisto. This childish snarlfest between the representatives of Hirota and Quintessence of Dust contributes nothing to this Assembly except annoyance and disgust at the immaturity being displayed.

We hope they can summon up enough common sense and respect for others to take their catty sniping to some private venue.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I'm going to carry on till it stops. Tis that simple.No, you won't. If the two of you don't shape up, grow up, or ignore each other, I'll end this feud.


The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
Who is getting sick of the constant bickering

No, you won't. If the two of you don't shape up, grow up, or ignore each other, I'll end this feud.Noted, and I'll behave.

Before Cluichstan tries to defenestrate me (again - I believe the last time was three months ago) please be aware that due to the advanced science of Minyos we have anti-gravity repulsors, I shall simply float gently to the ground. In fact it is quite a pleasant experience...defenestrate away anyone, it will deposit me directly into a beautiful garden full of native Minyonian vegetation, and I will happily take a stroll and a break from the onerous duties of managing our beautiful nation.

*defenestrates the Minyosian ambassador* Request granted!

*Looks at Sheik Nadnerb. Looks at Accelerus. Looks at Vermi. Waaaaaayyyy up at Vermi. Considers the implications of cozying up together with them around a nice warm fire with some hot cocoa and a big blanket big enough for all four to wrap around themselves. Shudders*

Bet you wouldn't object, though, to a little snuggle with my deputy, Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Because that isn't necessary. The air-traffic controllers have appeared again, without contradicting my previous arguments: don't let planes go up when your air-traffic controlers are on strike. Simple.

No, not simple.

What about the thousands of planes that might already be in the air? The thousands of international flights? Or in the case of my own nation and the Yeldan nation, interplanetary flights? You can't just let the controllers skip out, they've got a job to do and it covers the airborne safety of millions of lives.

It will be inconvenient, but hey, that's the point of a strike. Same for railroad employees, although of course they can include the catering people and any nation would crawl to a standstill if the coffee isn't delivered on the train.

Inconvenient? Try dangerous.

Federal employees - oh I'm sure people don't mind if your economic policy makers are on strike for a few years.

I'm thinking more along the lines of tax inspectors, intelligence officials, etc. It's ridiculous to state that no government workers can go on strike, because there are some jobs which are absolutely essential to the everyday operation of the entire nation. People might rely on the national weather service if they live in an area prone to blizzards, or flooding, or pirate attacks. Well, sorry, looks like pirates just raped and looted your village because the border guards wanted a higher hourly rate.

In short: yes, a strike is inconvenient, it may cost money. Employers have a "weapon": fire people.

It can also be dangerous.

Employees don't, except in the cases of specialist knowledge in which case they can threaten to find another job just as easily as going on strike. This resolution isn't written for that last group because they already are in a position of power against their employers. The rest isn't, and they need to be able to threaten with something to be able to stand up for their rights.

Look, I'm not saying that we need to outlaw unions and strip union rights. But this proposal is needlessly lax in allowing unionization and dangerous strikes.

If a strike would be too dangerous, you can use the independent arbitration to try to resolve the conflict.

Something that will take time, more money, and possibly endanger even more lives. Yes, that's a shining solution.

What you cannot do is write laws that only allow people of over 80 years old with blonde hair to go on strike. What you can do in most nations is convict people who are guilty of negligence or of an action which caused the death of someone. A strike isn't something you just do, without any reason.

No, it has a stated reason: to disrupt the everyday activities of a business or government, by stymying, stopping, obstructing, and otherwise halting the operation of business, flow of goods & capital, and refusing sometimes essential services. Sometimes, those result in indirect deaths.

I'd love to see what happens when home-care providers caring for invalid elders go on strike.


Rang Erman
Advisor

this is the stupidest thing ever established. If you let the people form unions and disagree you will lose control and all heck will break lose. Vote for the appeal of this.

Communique from Dr. James Scraps:
"Yes...in my humble opinion, a repeal will only stomp out the problem of those who think they are too good to see the honor of honest work."

You can't just let the controllers skip out, they've got a job to do and it covers the airborne safety of millions of lives.

It is highly unlikely that air-traffic controllers will simply walk out without any notice. Why would they? If they're a bunch of anarchists, you need to review the way they were hired in the first place. For such positions you need reliable people, and you don't seem to be able to get those. Pity. The other examples aren't really convincing either. Tax inspectors on strike causing deaths? Please. It'll take longer to process the tax forms. Intelligence Officials? With people like that on such important positions, you ought to start worrying about the quality of your intelligence first. I mean, as if they would have to unionise first to disrupt your little government so much. Get real.

In short, you don't get the point I've already made several times. What prevents these people from walking out without unions? You've created a situation where a select few (and, if I have to believe some of the others, virtually irreplacable) people can walk out and cause death & destruction anyway. Put nitwits on such positions and you have much, much more to worry about than a union.

Unions have no influence on this.

Many nations already have unions for ages, and guess what: unions don't kill people. People kill people.

It is highly unlikely that air-traffic controllers will simply walk out without any notice. Why would they? If they're a bunch of anarchists, you need to review the way they were hired in the first place. For such positions you need reliable people, and you don't seem to be able to get those. Pity. The other examples aren't really convincing either. Tax inspectors on strike causing deaths? Please. It'll take longer to process the tax forms. Intelligence Officials? With people like that on such important positions, you ought to start worrying about the quality of your intelligence first. I mean, as if they would have to unionise first to disrupt your little government so much. Get real.

Alright, I concede those points. But it's more the system than the individual- smaller jobs, like meter service, trashcollection, and law enforcement become much more important the longer people don't have them- income for the city/government, removal of waste (in situations where the government does it) and safety are very important things. I'm not concerned with the unions so much as the ability of those unions to cause harm.

In short, you don't get the point I've already made several times. What prevents these people from walking out without unions? You've created a situation where a select few (and, if I have to believe some of the others, virtually irreplacable) people can walk out and cause death & destruction anyway. Put nitwits on such positions and you have much, much more to worry about than a union.

Granted, it was an example, but you assume that our Emperor appoints every single position in the bureacracy. Sometimes, dumb people just get good jobs- it happens everywhere. You can't underestimate the harm to be caused by the idiotic.

Many nations already have unions for ages, and guess what: unions don't kill people. People kill people.

As do we, and they are strictly regulated, and guess what: people in unions kill people because they can.

We remain unconvinced. The international federation clause still makes us wary of this legislation- labor in the Empire is an Imperial affair, something for our citizens to work out per their own cultural practices and needs. The idea of foreign labor unions entering and conglomerating is frightening.

Most courteously,

In short, you don't get the point I've already made several times. What prevents these people from walking out without unions?

Nothing really, but this clause in the resolution in question gives them the ability to do so without facing the possibility of dismissal.

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, (Emphasis mine.)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Oh, I know...I meant them, not you. I'm just going to shut up now.

Oh...my bad....I misunderstood, sorry about that. No hard feelings?

Bet you wouldn't object, though, to a little snuggle with my deputy, Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)...


*Amiral Shackleford starts to rise, looks down, thinks better of rising*

You, my good Sheik, are very correct. In fact, I think I might have to ask your Deputy if she'd care to join me for a pleasant ride through the gardens a little later on with a good friend (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/centfem3.jpg) I recently made the acquaintance of.

IC: I am overjoyed that the VAST majority of Delegates and individual nations have rejected this vile proposal...

OOC: David6, stop pushing your filth, I am the top of the whole year in my university (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, which also has the highest reputation regarding environmental degrees in this state)...have you not seen the abnormal weather patterns, the extreme droughts, the extreme cold snaps...this is life and death for the planet and all of us, human and non-human citizens...does it not strike a chill in your bones that to have an economy one must have a viable world to live in? Do NOT quote rubbish at me, I personally have in public forums asked questions of the highest coal and nuclear energy authorities in this country and they have looked VERY uncomfortable and NOT been able to answer the questions sufficiently...I had not done any research on ACCEL until the last 48 hours but I ask you...do you wish to keep BREATHING, or not? This is the reality...we are facing the most serious crises (and I MEAN crises, multiple) that the recorded history of the human race has faced...yet it seems that ACCEL blithely wants no real change...sorry brother, this is not the case.

Iain Cormac McGhee - no NS b/s, this is real life, and LIFE we are talking about. I am not afraid to sign as myself.

OOC: David6, stop pushing your filth, I am the top of the whole year in my university (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, which also has the highest reputation regarding environmental degrees in this state)...have you not seen the abnormal weather patterns, the extereme droughts, the extreme cold snaps...this is life and death for the planet and all of us, human and non-human citizens...does it not strike a chill in your bones that to have an economy one must have a viable world to live in? Do NOT quote rubbish at me, I personally have in public forums asked questions of the highest coal and nuclear energy authorities in this country and they have looked VERY uncomfortable and NOT been able to answer the questions sufficiently...I had not done any research on ACCEL until the last 48 hours but I ask you...do you wish to keep BREATHING, or not? This is the reality...we are facing the most serious crises (and I MEAN crises, multiple) that the recorded history of the human race has faced...yet it seems that ACCEL blithely wants no real change...sorry brother, this is not the case.

Iain Cormac McGhee - no NS b/s, this is real life, and LIFE we are talking about. I am not afraid to sign as myself.

1) This is NS, not RL. End of story.
2) This is the wrong thread for environmental issues. This is the discussion for the attempt to repeal the Right to Form Unions.
3) Nobody here cares or is impressed by how you're doing in school, or what you do with your life. It's completely irrelevant to anything within NS.
4) ACCEL exists within NS. The problems you are talking about are in RL. Why should ACCEL concern themselves with things that are not scientifically proven to even be an issue within the universe that holds them.
5) Giving out your real name over a gigantic public forum such as this is foolhardy. Just a friendly warning.

Votes For: 4,843

Votes Against: 6,494

Minyos - if you want to talk about Real Life, I suggest you take it to General.

OOC: David6, stop pushing your filth,

David6 didn't bother with doing much this thread to defend his own proposal; if you hadn't mentioned him, I'd have nearly forgotten he existed at all.

*Amiral Shackleford starts to rise, looks down, thinks better of rising*

You, my good Sheik, are very correct. In fact, I think I might have to ask your Deputy if she'd care to join me for a pleasant ride through the gardens a little later on with a good friend (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/centfem3.jpg) I recently made the acquaintance of.


I'm pretty sure Bala charges extra for inter-species action...

IC: I am overjoyed that the VAST majority of Delegates and individual nations have rejected this vile proposal...

OOC: David6, stop pushing your filth, I am the top of the whole year in my university (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, which also has the highest reputation regarding environmental degrees in this state)...have you not seen the abnormal weather patterns, the extreme droughts, the extreme cold snaps...this is life and death for the planet and all of us, human and non-human citizens...does it not strike a chill in your bones that to have an economy one must have a viable world to live in? Do NOT quote rubbish at me, I personally have in public forums asked questions of the highest coal and nuclear energy authorities in this country and they have looked VERY uncomfortable and NOT been able to answer the questions sufficiently...I had not done any research on ACCEL until the last 48 hours but I ask you...do you wish to keep BREATHING, or not? This is the reality...we are facing the most serious crises (and I MEAN crises, multiple) that the recorded history of the human race has faced...yet it seems that ACCEL blithely wants no real change...sorry brother, this is not the case.

Iain Cormac McGhee - no NS b/s, this is real life, and LIFE we are talking about. I am not afraid to sign as myself.

OOC: Whoa...Minyos is my new hero! http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/roflma.gif OMFG! I can't stop laughing. And no, Minyos, I'm not laughing with you. http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/roflma.gif

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions" was defeated 6,504 votes to 4,863.

I can rest easy knowing that we can still Farm Onions.

Well, can't say we're happy, sad, or surprised. As much as we have problems with the legislation, we couldn't condone the arguments of this repeal.

I didn't pushi it because I am pretty much fed up with this forum that I can only log into about 10% of the time and the people on it who spend their time not arguing against but instead bashing me constantly. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go rant on the AO forums.

I didn't pushi it because I am pretty much fed up with this forum that I can only log into about 10% of the time and the people on it who spend their time not arguing against but instead bashing me constantly. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go rant on the AO forums.

The Altanari ambassador shrugs, walks over and places a box of Kleenex on the desk of the David6 delegation. She then walks off, shaking her head.

I congratulate all the delegates who managed to discuss the schoolyard rhetoric of this repeal civilly, a task so far beyond me that it seemed wiser to spend the entire discussion in the Strangers' Bar.

Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

I congratulate all the delegates who managed to discuss the schoolyard rhetoric of this repeal civilly, a task so far beyond me that it seemed wiser to spend the entire discussion in the Strangers' Bar.

Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

*Admiral Shackleford's head snaps over to stare open-mouthed at Dicey.*

There's a BAR in here??? I don't suppose...just maybe...that you might happen to have any Ennish Shandy, perhaps acquired before the collapse, or salvaged from the Remnants?

I didn't pushi it because I am pretty much fed up with this forum that I can only log into about 10% of the time and the people on it who spend their time not arguing against but instead bashing me constantly. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go rant on the AO forums.

How nice. First we had the broken spacebar excuse. Then we had the "too busy with ACCEL" excuse. Now we have the forum login excuse.

How about the "completely unable to defend a proposal that misrepresented the original resolution and made spurious arguments" excuse? It seems to us that nobody bashed the representative until he demonstrated that his idea of debate was snide, dismissive comments and a clear unwillingness to respond substantively to criticism of the proposal.

Our sympathy to the good people of Antarctic Oasis.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Of course this is real life. I must be imagining this computer and the internet, it's not real life. Mind you, I must admit it gets quite surreal on these forums.

The whole argument that what happens on the internet is "not real life" was demolished some years ago. It is simply another form of communication. I very much doubt that people like myself, and others of various political persuasions, are just RPing things to the max, for the hell of it. Why are many of the issues mirroring uhhhh "real life" situations? I can understand people RP to some extent, but not to the extent of carefully crafting repeals and sending multiple telegrams, pre and post polling.

Oh, and by the way, Kivisto, in the socialist/liberal regions, I AM held in high regard for my achievements in the, aha, real world political sphere and academia but we don't count, we aren't UN slaves, and ratbag lefties to boot.

Cluich, laugh at me if you will, I find the concept of someone who has thousands of posts logged and a contemptuous opinion on others outside his/her clique laughable. All that wasted time... and for someone who postures as being so wise and and all knowing OOC, you could do more to help the serious problems facing ahhh, the real world more effectively than endlessly posting in these forums...I have a GREAT website for you, it's called www.outside.com, it's FREE to access and the graphics are amazing!

End of story. I didn't see any of the many posters who voted NAY throughout this thread complaining about my post, just the same old tired few of you. Get you kicks on route minus 6...it's just a bloody forum and I don't see what fascinates the few of you to post in here repeatedly every time, every resolution.

THAT is the laughable thing...over and over, any resolution...I have been in here because this issue is important to me, but the same tired small group of you post repeatedly on any old thing...impotence in the real world perhaps?

I do agree that perhaps a discussion on environmentalism/climate change belonged somewhere else, but a goodly 6-7 posts on the nature of fascism was fine and dandy...if the tired clique choose to close ranks on a perceived enemy when it suits them and not at other times, when they are toeing the unwritten line, so be it.

Night folks...your real life here, and it is part of real life, is somewhat narrow and bureaucratic, but those few of you who spend a lot of time in here seem to enjoy it, so peace be with you, I will rarely disturb you.

My name is all over the internet and has been for years, nothing has ever happened, I'm not paranoid about these things.

Stop spamming. Please.

The Altanari ambassador, halfway to her desk, grumbles under her breath, shrugs again, and gestures to her assistant Ikir. He brings over another box of tissues and places them on the desk of the Minyos delegation. "We're going to run out of these in a minute," he mumbles under his breath.

Of course this is real life. I must be imagining this computer and the internet, it's not real life. Mind you, I must admit it gets quite surreal on these forums.

To make this clear, the following comments are Out Of Character.

This is a roleplaying forum for a game that is not affiliated with Real Life. It is for the NationStates Multiverse, which does not follow the same timeline, nor necessarily, the physical laws of the real world.

The whole argument that what happens on the internet is "not real life" was demolished some years ago. It is simply another form of communication. I very much doubt that people like myself, and others of various political persuasions, are just RPing things to the max, for the hell of it. Why are many of the issues mirroring uhhhh "real life" situations? I can understand people RP to some extent, but not to the extent of carefully crafting repeals and sending multiple telegrams, pre and post polling.

They mirror real life because we derive inspiration from our real lives. Nevertheless, however, NationStates, as a universe, does not exist within the same paradigm as the real world.

Oh, and by the way, Kivisto, in the socialist/liberal regions, I AM held in high regard for my achievements in the, aha, real world political sphere and academia but we don't count, we aren't UN slaves, and ratbag lefties to boot.


Your real world accomplishments mean nothing in the NationStates world.

Cluich, laugh at me if you will,

He is likely to. He's also likely to make a few of us laugh with him at your expense.

I find the concept of someone who has thousands of posts logged and a contemptuous opinion on others outside his/her clique laughable.

Good for you.

All that wasted time... and for someone who postures as being so wise and and all knowing OOC, you could do more to help the serious problems facing ahhh, the real world more effectively than endlessly posting in these forums...I have a GREAT website for you, it's called www.outside.com, it's FREE to access and the graphics are amazing!

His real life hobbies and practices are no more relevant here than yours. Making disparaging remarks about the other players on this forum is not appreciated, however. We would thank you to cut it out.

edit: a website for home decor? What?

End of story. I didn't see any of the many posters who voted NAY throughout this thread complaining about my post, just the same old tired few of you.

The post to which we are responding came after the voting ended. Many will have already left off reading the thread. Many more will have completely disrregarded as being completely off-topic as you spiralled away about the environment in a thread dedicated to Labour Unions.

Get you kicks on route minus 6...it's just a bloody forum and I don't see what fascinates the few of you to post in here repeatedly every time, every resolution.

Fascinating. What drew you here? It's probably roughly the same sort of thing.

THAT is the laughable thing...over and over, any resolution...I have been in here because this issue is important to me, but the same tired small group of you post repeatedly on any old thing...impotence in the real world perhaps?

You came into a debate about Labour Unions in a make believe world because the environment is very important to you....that....that's special. Here's a ball. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it.

For what it's worth, yet again, slander against the other players is not appreciated, nor is it often tolerated. You should stop before it becomes a problem.

I do agree that perhaps a discussion on environmentalism/climate change belonged somewhere else, but a goodly 6-7 posts on the nature of fascism was fine and dandy...if the tired clique choose to close ranks on a perceived enemy when it suits them and not at other times, when they are toeing the unwritten line, so be it.

The fascist remarks were brought up on topic and we were swiftly returned to topic after them. The environment had not even been mentioned in this thread until you came in with your thread hijack.

Night folks...your real life here, and it is part of real life, is somewhat narrow and bureaucratic, but those few of you who spend a lot of time in here seem to enjoy it, so peace be with you, I will rarely disturb you.

Good.

My name is all over the internet and has been for years, nothing has ever happened, I'm not paranoid about these things.

Good. There's no real need for paranoia, but there are a great many unscrupulous individuals on the internet who will take advantage of whatever information they can get. It was just a precautionary suggestion.

Oh...my bad....I misunderstood, sorry about that. No hard feelings?

OOC: of course not. I don't take things on here personally. *cough cough hint hint*

I didn't see any of the many posters who voted NAY throughout this thread complaining about my post, just the same old tired few of you.

OOC: speaking as one of the more verbose nay-sayers, I was desperately hoping that you'd shut up. It's hard enough work pinning someone down for failing to answer your questions without someone else gifting them with an entirely different argument to side-track down, one that happens to be easy pickings to boot.

All OOC:

Cluich, laugh at me if you will, I find the concept of someone who has thousands of posts logged and a contemptuous opinion on others outside his/her clique laughable.

I've been laughing at you from the get-go. Your attempts at flaming are truly hysterical. You underestimate your own ridiculousness.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not a member of any clique, but then you wouldn't know that, what with your head lodged so firmly in that dark, moist place we call your own anus and all. How's that stench treating you, by the way?

All that wasted time... and for someone who postures as being so wise and and all knowing OOC, you could do more to help the serious problems facing ahhh, the real world more effectively than endlessly posting in these forums...I have a GREAT website for you, it's called www.outside.com, it's FREE to access and the graphics are amazing!

I could, but, then, the real world's populated by a lot of wastes of perfectly good protein such as yourself, so I'm not really feeling all that motivated. And going outside? Why not take a bit of your own advice and leave here? It'd certainly cut down on the amount of arrogant ignorance (or should that be ignorant arrogance?) the rest of us are forced to deal with.

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions" was defeated 6,504 votes to 4,863.OK, I guess I better end the strike and go back to work.

I congratulate all the delegates who managed to discuss the schoolyard rhetoric of this repeal civilly, a task so far beyond me that it seemed wiser to spend the entire discussion in the Strangers' Bar.

Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.Yeah, it made me glad that I was on strike and was able to avoid the whole debacle.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And locked, because some people can't keep IC and OOC separate.


The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
In the real world, I have 15 doctorates, am filthy rich, and am one of the Grand Masters of the Illuminati.