NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions"

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #149
Proposed by: Cristia Agape

Description: UN Resolution #149: The Right to Form Unions (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

ADMIRING the intentions of the original resolution as honorable and defensible;

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of Unions in certain economic and governmental structures;

NOTING that the benefits of a union can only be truly realized in a society where workers have the option to contractually surrender their union rights;

NOTING the tendency of natural regulation that occurs in capitalist markets to ensure Unions are preserved;

NOTING the absence of necessity for Unions in controlled markets (given the nature of a government run by the workers);

CONCERNED with the restrictions an overarching, international protection of Unions places on some forms of government;

CONCERNED with certain practical errors present in the resolution;


OBSERVING ideological shortcomings of the resolution, namely that it:

-undermines some forms of government, such as socialism and communism, that do not operate under a free-market system.

-undermines many forms of economic policy, such as a strictly free-market system, by mandating government intervention via requiring arbitration and enforcement to be supplied.

-undermines individual governments by prohibiting said governments from temporarily suspending Union rights, regardless of natural disaster, medical emergency or war.

-undermines and cripples start-up small businesses by allowing employees of any size business to Unionize and strike, regardless of their motivation or contractual obligations; and additionally undermines small businesses by removing the ability to avoid (as a method of self-preservation) hiring employees with such rights by guaranteeing these rights to all members of the workforce.

-undermines the privacy of employer-employee negotiations by publicly mandating certain unavoidable contract laws; and that the resolution provides no method for employers to guarantee employees will not fully invoke these rights with no provocation, regardless of the need for such a guarantee.

-undermines employers in free-market systems, by allowing the employee a perfectly legal route to indefinitely preserve their job, regardless of any reason, no matter how viable (including information dissemination and violation of business practicum), for their dismissal from their place of work.


AND OBSERVING practical shortcomings of the resolution, namely that it:

-fails to even define 'Union', effectively enabling any single individual to possess the rights "reserved" to a fully operable Union, or allowing a nation to set such strict requirements on the definition as to prevent a Union from actually existing.

-fails to give recourse to the possibility of failed 'independent arbitration', effectively giving every Union, regardless of industry (including military and medical) the ability to strike, regardless of the harm to the public good.

-fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialogue between associates.

-is self-contradictory in Clause #8 by giving no hierarchy; effectively, there is no line drawn between what laws restrict Union activity and what laws Unions must abide by, guaranteeing massive legal battles to determine these lines.


Hereby REPEALS U.N. resolution #149, 'The Right to Form Unions'.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
The original resolution:
The Right to Form Unions

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.

Please note this is my first time making one of these threads, so if I mussed the format somehow, let me know so I can fix it.

Zyrwick will most likely abstain (for now) on this repeal.

I was wondering however if someone was willing to either write a better replacement? If there is, feel free to Telegram our UN Mission, if not this might provide an opportunity for us to do a bit of legislating...which we have been itching to do.

I personally like the idea of workers of all nations having the right to form "unions" however that idea takes on different meanings in different situations. In a communist nation like the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick, the Soviet that runs the Farm/Factory/whatever, and the Labor Union that represents the workers of that Farm/Factory/whatever is one and the same. And naturally in a capitalist setting that would be different.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

I am not totally convinced but i am FOR this proposal

Concern:

-is self-contradictory in Clause #8 by giving no hierarchy; effectively, there is no line drawn between what laws restrict Union activity and what laws Unions must abide by, guaranteeing massive legal battles to determine these lines.

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.

I really don't see how that's self contradictory....

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

We don't like the original resolution, nor the 'arguments' presented in its defence last time, but there would be appear to be some errors and mistatements in this repeal. For the moment, we're abstaining.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

We plan to abstain. We haven't any interest in the thing.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

The subject of Unions is a hotly debated one in the United States of Philimbesi.
While their worth is undeniable there is a movement in our Senate to limit their political strengths. Because of this I have been requested to abstain from this debate, until such time as a bill is placed on the presidents desk

Perhaps there is a valid repeal of the resolution under attack, but this is not that repeal. Opposed.

Benedictions,

Aw crap, looks like I'm going to have to go on strike, again.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You have the support of Karmicaria.


Dahlia Dioce
Vice President
Harem of Karmicaria

While Resolution #149 is flawed and is certainly in need of replacement, we find some of the arguments of this repeal specious and will abstain for now.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

-fails to give recourse to the possibility of failed 'independent arbitration', effectively giving every Union, regardless of industry (including military and medical) the ability to strike, regardless of the harm to the public good.
in reference to this clause of the resolution
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,
That section alone of the repeal reveals a considerable lack of understanding of labor negotiations and binding arbitration, the English language (especially the word "shall"), or a willingness to misrepresent the original resolution's content in an effort to build support for this repeal.

Firmly opposed.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

You know, I didn't think that I'd see a repeal of this that was worse than David6's. Boy, was I wrong. This is unmitigated crap. More or less every clause is a material misrepresentation of the resolution, badly flawed logic, or just plain wrong.

Opposed, in case that wasn't clear.

With the exception of really small resolutions, I feel uncomfortable with the argument of a repeal (3,456 characters) being significantly longer than the reslution's argument (2,267 characters).

Secondly I am not convinced that the arguments presented in the repeal are more than minor nit picking. Given the exeptional lenght of the minor nit picks, I am twice concerned about this.

For these reasons I am currently opposed to this repeal. I reserve the right to support a repeal that would make an argument that I might agree with.

Opposing a repeal because it's got more characters than the resolution it's repealing? I was told some of the arguments here would be ridiculous, but this? Wow.

I really hate "Daddy" for sticking me here now.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

The right to form unions should be held inviolate. This is for the protection of all parties. We are opposed to a repeal at this point.

Unions are a neccesity and a right that every worker is entitled to. Without unions who would keep the capitalists in line and if unions interfere in the communist system all the better. This law dosen't have to be detailed. For pete sake were giving them the right to make their OWN organizations! How they organize them dosen't concern us. What does concern us is their right to have them. So long as they don't go around killing people on the streets I'd say they're fine.

For. Someone's got to be

Although I approved the initial proposal, I have yet to look into the matter, and examine if the original proposal is truly as deficient and unsuitable as the repeal suggets.

I, strangely enough, am joining the majority (And Ambassador Gramico (Even stranger) and abstaining)

For. Someone's got to be

No someone hasn't got to be. Not for something this tangential to reality.

Again with that GD letter "C". I fail to see what is so hard about spelling my name correctly.

Anyway, I would like to remind the Nactbergian Ambassador that when we say Abstain, that means we will probably vote against unless there is good argument for passing this legislation.

And us to vote against a repeal is highly unusual.

Alexei GramiKo
Annoyed Zyrwickian Ambassador

Hey all - Cristia Agape, author of the resolution. Hi.

I don't come around here much, but someone threw this thread at me so I figured I oughta say something.

I won't try to convince all of y'all - like I said in my letter to the various Delegates, I understand there's room for disagreement.

The only reason I'm posting, really, is to respond to one thought (just for clarification) and to give my general outlook in writing this repeal.

First, my general outlook: I never intended for every person to agree with every single bit of reasoning to this resolution. My goal was to find anything anyone could find wrong with it. If you find one reason to repeal the resolution strong enough to repeal it, what does it matter if you disagree with the rest of the reasoning? The end-effect is still the resolution's repeal.

That was my reasoning at least; again, I understand some people may disagree with this - namely the tendency of resolutions' reasoning to be viewed as precedents. But, in pondering this repeal, I'm not convinced the fear of precedents has enough power to truly derail the proposal.

That said, I'd like to clarify one other point. I don't expect to change anyone's minds; but I'm mildly OCD about explaining things fully.

The last part of the resolution calls it self-contradictory in Clause #8: let me clarify what I mean by this. The clause states (paraphrased) 'nations may not restrict the rights of unions, and unions must obey the laws of their nation'.

This clause, in my eyes, is worthless - where is the line drawn between what laws restrict union activity and what laws a union must abide by? If the government rules that a union cannot kill someone by popular vote, does that not qualify as a 'union restriction'? If a government passes a law that unions can only meet on every fourth Tuesday of the month, is that not a law the union must 'abide by'? Naturally these are two extreme examples, but I'm simply using them to illustrate my opinion.

Needless to say, I might be misinterpreting the original resolution; or perhaps the original resolution's intentions were poorly worded. If someone can more fully explain this clause to me, I'd love to hear it.

And to the person who said the length of the proposal belies its tangibility... it seems to me, the longer the repeal, the more there was to criticize in the original, the more reason to repeal after all. But maybe that's simply my opinion. I'll also admit I'm a bit wordy and rambling.

Anyway, my apologies to those of you that don't agree with my repeal. I don't have a long-term agenda for this; I did not enter this repeal for the intention of passing a new resolution later to takes it place (I've discussed the possibility with some associates, but that has never been a priority for me), nor did I enter it because I'm wholeheartedly against its intentions and objectives. I simply saw a resolution that, in my eyes, is not useful, so I wrote a repeal. And frankly, even if it doesn't pass I'm still pretty happy, just that it's garnered this much attention.

That's all - have a nice day :)

For. Someone's got to be

No need to feel all alone. The Vandalorian people are for this repeal, too.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

*Leetha continues to bite a hole through the inside of her cheek.*

Gahhh!
I won't try to convince all of y'all And yet, defending and explaining one's argument is a primary purpose of the debate phase. If you don't wish to, why should anyone else support your argument?

If you find one reason to repeal the resolution strong enough to repeal it, what does it matter if you disagree with the rest of the reasoning? The end-effect is still the resolution's repeal.Because by supporting the resolution, we are supporting ALL of the arguments? Because by accepting a contradictory mish-mash of rationale we would be furthering the poor quality of resolutions (a repeal is as much a resolution as any other piece of legislation on the books)? Because "ends justifies the means" is an abhorrent policy in any venue?

I might be misinterpreting the original resolution.On any number of points.

...nor did I enter it because I'm wholeheartedly against its intentions and objectives. I simply saw a resolution that, in my eyes, is not useful, so I wrote a repeal. And frankly, even if it doesn't pass I'm still pretty happy, just that it's garnered this much attention.I think I have a migraine coming on.

*Leetha puts her head down on her desk and weeps.*

--L.T.

And yet, defending and explaining one's argument is a primary purpose of the debate phase. If you don't wish to, why should anyone else support your argument?

"all" was the key word in my sentence. I'm not trying to convince all of you; I recognize that this is a controversial issue (the original resolution passed by a relatively narrow margin as well) and that there are certainly arguments I will make that have civil, legitimate opposite viewpoints.

Because by supporting the resolution, we are supporting ALL of the arguments?

This is where we disagree. When I support a resolution, I do so because I support the end-effect. Neither your way nor mine is right nor wrong; they're simply differing opinions.

As far as "the ends don't justify the means", I don't consider "reasoning" and "means" to be identical. "Means" are actual steps that are taken towards a goal. "Reasoning" is the reason for pursuing those means. That's like saying I'm not a hero for saving a girl from a murderer if I did so just because I thought she was hot. And maybe I'm not; again, just differing opinions.

Hopefully I've clarified what I was trying to express; the first thing, especially, I understand how my original statement was unclear. My apologies; I sincerely hope it makes more sense this time around.

With due respects to the author of this repeal, I simply see no value in supporting this resolution. Rubina said earlier in the thread many of the same things I would say.

It suffices to say in order to write a good repeal and gain my support, you will need to demonstrate more than a mere passing understanding of the subject matter, in this case labor law, negotiations and such.

Schwarzchild will vote against this resolution and advise the Delegate of the The West Pacific to vote against it as well.

~S
Foreign Minister of the West Pacific

cameroi opposes the current wave of repeal mania and supports the rights of all individuals to band togather for any and all peaceful purposes.

our economy is non-monetary. whatever requires group effort that people don't feel like getting togather to create for the pleasure of doing so, does not get created, and we all get along just fine without. dispite this, in many places we have excelent very narrow gauge railway and other small form factor guideway based transportation systems. where people would rather pad along on the hindpaws nature gave them then build them, they do that.

such tradeoff choices are made by defacto consensi of individual pleasure and action, generally at the local level, or at most regeonal.

the only roll of government, which is also in many senses run by hobbiests, is to ensure environmental harmony in the tecnologies and methods employed.

most such efforts are self organizing, but organizing assistence is provided where requested. non-voluntary recruting is not undertaken nor permitted.

we are not a foolish people, and do turn to those experienced among us to coordinate efforts, while retaining final authority with each and every voluntary participant.

we really don't see this issue as any fur off our snouts either way.

=^^=
.../\...

The Representative of Christia Agape states that they don't intend to try to convince all of us. It would be nice if they tried to convince any of us that disagreed with them to start with. To that end, let's take this proposal apart, and let them try to put it back together again.


Argument: The United Nations,

ADMIRING the intentions of the original resolution as honorable and defensible;

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of Unions in certain economic and governmental structures;
Given some of the following, this statement seems unlikely.

NOTING that the benefits of a union can only be truly realized in a society where workers have the option to contractually surrender their union rights;
Er, what? That makes no sense whatsoever. It seems to be saying that unions work best when workers have the right not to belong to them, which is (a) daft, and (b) irrelevant.

NOTING the tendency of natural regulation that occurs in capitalist markets to ensure Unions are preserved;
Noting, contrarily, the tendency of capitalist markets to attempt to destroy unions in the name of efficiency. Or in other words, this bald assertion is at best dubious and at worst outright misleading. Is there any justification for it at all?

NOTING the absence of necessity for Unions in controlled markets (given the nature of a government run by the workers);
Now this is just plain wrong. Government run by the workers is one of many forms of controlled market. The author seems to have fallen for the idea that markets are either entirely free or entirely controlled, when the truth is that they are generally entirely neither. There is an extreme socialist utopia that might just manage to work without Union safeguards, but it's so rare and unstable that frankly we might as well ignore it for this purpose. It certainly doesn't justify such a forthright statement.

CONCERNED with the restrictions an overarching, international protection of Unions places on some forms of government;
Personally I'm not concerned at all. In fact I'm quite pleased.

CONCERNED with certain practical errors present in the resolution;
Fluff. Either you enumerate the errors later, in which case this is redundant, or you don't, in which case it's just hanging in the breeze in an optimistic manner.

OBSERVING ideological shortcomings of the resolution, namely that it:

-undermines some forms of government, such as socialism and communism, that do not operate under a free-market system.
Er, no. Unions have bugger all to do with any form of market system.

-undermines many forms of economic policy, such as a strictly free-market system, by mandating government intervention via requiring arbitration and enforcement to be supplied.
The resolution requires no such thing. Nor does arbitration or enforcement amount to an infringement on free-market systems -- it's part of the damn system!

-undermines individual governments by prohibiting said governments from temporarily suspending Union rights, regardless of natural disaster, medical emergency or war.
This is the nearest to a point so far. Even so, the resolution covers it:
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;
If cases of war, natural disaster and the like aren't falling into this category, why is the government trying to suspend the rights in the first place?

-undermines and cripples start-up small businesses by allowing employees of any size business to Unionize and strike, regardless of their motivation or contractual obligations; and additionally undermines small businesses by removing the ability to avoid (as a method of self-preservation) hiring employees with such rights by guaranteeing these rights to all members of the workforce.
First off, any small-to-medium business that doesn't have good enough relations with its workers to avoid strikes is doomed anyway. Second, forcing your employer out of business is a pretty career-limiting move for most union members. Oh, and the second half of this whinge is the entire sodding point of having unions. Anyone who regards that as an inconvenience is the sort of person who needs unions forced down their throat as a matter of urgency.

-undermines the privacy of employer-employee negotiations by publicly mandating certain unavoidable contract laws; and that the resolution provides no method for employers to guarantee employees will not fully invoke these rights with no provocation, regardless of the need for such a guarantee.
What? Seriously, what are you smoking, and how do I ban it? I'm all for creative thinking, but having some basis in reality would be good. The resolution does nothing that I can square up to this in any way, nor does the second half of the bullet point seem to have anything to do with the first.

-undermines employers in free-market systems, by allowing the employee a perfectly legal route to indefinitely preserve their job, regardless of any reason, no matter how viable (including information dissemination and violation of business practicum), for their dismissal from their place of work.
Er, no. It says you can't fire someone for (legally) striking. It does not say, imply, or go anywhere near the subject of firing someone for any other reason. The resolution is so crystal clear on this that I can only regard this point as an outright lie.

AND OBSERVING practical shortcomings of the resolution, namely that it:

-fails to even define 'Union', effectively enabling any single individual to possess the rights "reserved" to a fully operable Union, or allowing a nation to set such strict requirements on the definition as to prevent a Union from actually existing.
The lack of definiton of 'Union' is about as relevant as the lack of definition of 'black'. The first whinge is singularly uninspiring -- so an individual can form his own union and go on strike. So what? You don't have to pay him, and as a union of one he wouldn't have a strike fund filled up by other people to fall back on. The thought terrifies me.

The second whinge isn't true:

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,

How this would allow a government to define "Union" in such a way that you couldn't form one is beyond me.

-fails to give recourse to the possibility of failed 'independent arbitration', effectively giving every Union, regardless of industry (including military and medical) the ability to strike, regardless of the harm to the public good.
Fails to understand 'independent', and 'arbitration' too for that matter.

-fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialogue between associates.
As distinct from the normal atmosphere of war between management and workers? This isn't even good alarmist clap-trap.

-is self-contradictory in Clause #8 by giving no hierarchy; effectively, there is no line drawn between what laws restrict Union activity and what laws Unions must abide by, guaranteeing massive legal battles to determine these lines.
Nope. The resolution is pretty damn clear. National laws mustn't inhibit the resolution (which they mustn't do anyway). Unions must obey national laws. How is there a hierarchical problem here? The resolution is in fact just stating the blindingly obvious; that UN resolutions take precedence over national law, and people have to obey both of them. If you fear lawyers here, then (a) you're gullible, and (b) you must have a lot of pointless law-suits going on over every other UN resolution. Even Comrade Gramiko hasn't come up with anything that stupid.

Hereby REPEALS U.N. resolution #149, 'The Right to Form Unions'.
I count one vaguely near miss and a lot of fibs. So no.

The United Pacific States of Tsumara will oppose this resoluition.

I am against it. You say it undermines certain form of government, but won't it undermine just as many when there isn't a guaranteed right to form unions? Because I'm sure a lot of opressive leaders would love to get rid of any semblence of defiance in the work force.

The Representative of Christia Agape states that they don't intend to try to convince all of us. It would be nice if they tried to convince any of us that disagreed with them to start with.
Seems to me that's the entire reason for putting the reasoning in the resolution. But I can't accuse you of not reading it; it looks as if you spent more time going over it than I did. Remind me to give my proposals to you before submitting them next time to get your feedback; you make some good points.

It's Cristia, by the way, and I'm a male - pardon the gender ambiguity, the name's Guatemalan slang for 'Christian'.

To that end, let's take this proposal apart, and let them try to put it back together again.
What have I gotten myself into? :)

Given some of the following, this statement seems unlikely.
How so? I do acknowledge that the intentions of the resolution are sound; it intends to protect workers' rights, an important goal. That's a sound intention. I just think the resolution fails.

Er, what? That makes no sense whatsoever. It seems to be saying that unions work best when workers have the right not to belong to them, which is (a) daft, and (b) irrelevant.
"Contractually surrender" is the key term here. That is to say, the benefits of a Union can only be fully realized when an employer has the opportunity to choose whether to hire Union employees or not. It's all about market balance: if Unions get too powerful, it becomes more cost-effective for employers to hire employees that surrender their Union rights. Under this resolution, that balance doesn't exist; an employee can join a Union at any time, allowing Unions to hold businesses hostage. Under this plan, Unions have absolute power: and no plan gives any group absolute power is, to me, a good one.

Noting, contrarily, the tendency of capitalist markets to attempt to destroy unions in the name of efficiency. Or in other words, this bald assertion is at best dubious and at worst outright misleading. Is there any justification for it at all?
You'll understand if I respectfully side with the arguments made by the majority of leading economists; namely, that your assertion there is not true. If you'd like to see my sources, I'll provide them given proper provocation to do so: namely, anything to make your own refute more than "dubious" itself. I'm willing to let this stand at your word against mine if you are (mostly from my own laziness to find non-wiki sources).

I should, however, mention here my own personal credibility as an Economics minor.

Now this is just plain wrong. Government run by the workers is one of many forms of controlled market. The author seems to have fallen for the idea that markets are either entirely free or entirely controlled, when the truth is that they are generally entirely neither. There is an extreme socialist utopia that might just manage to work without Union safeguards, but it's so rare and unstable that frankly we might as well ignore it for this purpose. It certainly doesn't justify such a forthright statement.
So long as there is one form of government within the United Nations that would be affected by this, I feel the reasoning stands. I disagree that we "might as well just ignore it". Simple difference of opinion.

Personally I'm not concerned at all. In fact I'm quite pleased.
Simple difference of opinion.

Fluff. Either you enumerate the errors later, in which case this is redundant, or you don't, in which case it's just hanging in the breeze in an optimistic manner.
Excellent point; I should've removed this when I went back and edited. I'm not sure this plays into opposing the resolution; but good catch nonetheless.

Er, no. Unions have bugger all to do with any form of market system.
I believe you yourself just mentioned a form of government that Unions are not relevant to: "extreme socialist utopia".

The resolution requires no such thing. Nor does arbitration or enforcement amount to an infringement on free-market systems -- it's part of the damn system!
I should clarify: the types of government it undermines are things that border on anarchy. If a government has no judicial system; if it has no legislative system; if it has nothing like this, this is a mandated expansion of government. Namely, it can't be "part of the damn system" if there isn't a system in the first place.

This is the nearest to a point so far. Even so, the resolution covers it:

If cases of war, natural disaster and the like aren't falling into this category, why is the government trying to suspend the rights in the first place?
I'll get back to you as soon as I remember my reasoning to this one; it wasn't included in the initial draft, but was added in later when I thought of a loophole. For now, point conceded.

First off, any small-to-medium business that doesn't have good enough relations with its workers to avoid strikes is doomed anyway.
I'm not disagreeing; but should the United Nations really be responsible for pre-eminently dooming it anyway? If you feel it is, that's fine; simple difference of opinion.
Second, forcing your employer out of business is a pretty career-limiting move for most union members.
Again, not disagreeing; but again, should the United Nations be responsible for providing a means to accomplish this? If you feel it is, that's fine; simple difference of opinion.
Oh, and the second half of this whinge is the entire sodding point of having unions. Anyone who regards that as an inconvenience is the sort of person who needs unions forced down their throat as a matter of urgency.
Giving the workers the right to strike because they don't like the drinks offered in the drink machine is the entire purpose of having a Union? Because as it stands, this resolution defends their right to do so, and not get fired for doing so. Simple difference of opinion.

What? Seriously, what are you smoking, and how do I ban it?
How respectful and professional. I've been nothing but respectful of your viewpoint; I kindly request the same courtesy.
I'm all for creative thinking, but having some basis in reality would be good.
Delightful coincidence that you choose the example I have rooted in personal experience to call unrealistic. This goes back to my earlier point; that for a Union's benefits to be fully realized, workers should be able to contractually surrender Union rights. My father worked for a large health consulting agency that underwent a strike; to counter, they hired temporary substitute workers who agreed, contractually, not to unionize. Had they not had the ability to do this, the business would've gone under due to the inconceivable cost of the Union's demands (essentially, pension payments that outweighed the company's profit margin).

I realize I expressed this point poorly in the resolution, so I can understand your opposition; that's a hard point to explain briefly and without an example.
nor does the second half of the bullet point seem to have anything to do with the first.
Yeah, I don't remember why I grouped these.

Er, no. It says you can't fire someone for (legally) striking. It does not say, imply, or go anywhere near the subject of firing someone for any other reason. The resolution is so crystal clear on this that I can only regard this point as an outright lie.
And this resolution also protects the right of workers to strike if they don't like the selection in the soda machine; meaning that it prevents employers from firing employees who stop showing up for work because they don't like the selection in the soda machine. Again, if you support their right to do so, that's fine; simple difference of opinion.

The lack of definiton of 'Union' is about as relevant as the lack of definition of 'black'. The first whinge is singularly uninspiring -- so an individual can form his own union and go on strike. So what? You don't have to pay him, and as a union of one he wouldn't have a strike fund filled up by other people to fall back on. The thought terrifies me.
And what happens when you hire someone to replace his job, then he shows back up for work again? What if the worker only shows up one day a week, and claims all the other days he's on strike? Should the company then obligated to allow him to work one day a week and hire someone else to do his job the other four days? If you think so, fine; simple difference of opinion.

And I know that sounds like a far-fetched example, but I've seen it happen; again, with my father. He fired the worker, but the worker got a temporary court order forcing the company to allow him to continue his "strike". For 2 months, he showed up every Thursday, and was forced to be paid for his work every Thursday while the company found someone else to take care of other days. Then, one day when he showed up on a Tuesday, the office refused to pay him (given that someone else was hired to do his job that day), and he sued for his paycheck for that day - the court denied him as well as throwing out the earlier order. Under the current resolution, he still has a job, allowing him to put undue strain on the company. Under the current resolution, they could not fire him for only showing up one day a week, because the other days would constitute a "strike".

How this would allow a government to define "Union" in such a way that you couldn't form one is beyond me.
"To be recognized as having Union rights, a 'Union' is required to have at least 307 million members." Like that; that doesn't pertain to any of the enumerated things the Union is free from interference from.

Fails to understand 'independent', and 'arbitration' too for that matter.
Your lack of an explanation here belies my attempt to clarify.

As distinct from the normal atmosphere of war between management and workers? This isn't even good alarmist clap-trap.
Difference of opinion.


Nope. The resolution is pretty damn clear. National laws mustn't inhibit the resolution (which they mustn't do anyway). Unions must obey national laws. How is there a hierarchical problem here? The resolution is in fact just stating the blindingly obvious; that UN resolutions take precedence over national law, and people have to obey both of them. If you fear lawyers here, then (a) you're gullible, and (b) you must have a lot of pointless law-suits going on over every other UN resolution. Even Comrade Gramiko hasn't come up with anything that stupid.
And if "Well it's blindingly obvious!" holds up in Court, then I'm a monkey's uncle. This resolution, and this clause in particular, is subject to abuse, either by the Union or by the government. Any time this clause is violated, both parties are indeed at fault: the Union for violating the law, and the State for passing a law that a Union can violate. This doesn't seem like a productive use of time in my eyes; but again, if this works for you, then this is a simple difference of opinion.

I count one vaguely near miss and a lot of fibs. So no.
I count a few things I needed to clarify, numerous things that have no right or wrong answer to them ("simple difference of opinion), and one thing, I must admit, I believe you are outright wrong on.

While we in Denactia have always, and will always, support the right of our citizen workers to form unions, we don't believe that this view should be forced on nations worldwide. As such, we would likely vote for a repeal.

Ausserland will vote AGAINST this repeal. We find much of the logic included in its arguments to be muddy, and some, we believe, doesn't hold water. Worse, in our view, is the misrepresentation of the effect of NSUNR #149. Contrary to the statement in this repeal, that resolution clearly and specifically excludes the armed forces from the guarantee of the right to strike. Further, the required arbitration cannot fail; the resolution is clear that it is binding arbitration.

We hold repeals to the same standard of quality as other resolutions. When the NSUN, by vote of the majority, approves a repeal, it goes on record as accepting the arguments presented. Contrary to the opinion of the representative of Cristia Agape, the arguments in a repeal are indeed the "means to an end". They are the means by which an author convinces the members of the Assembly to support the legislation. And we will not support an effort in which the means include "piling on of charges", dubious logic, and misrepresentation.

Batlthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I have been instructed by the Zyrwickian Council of Ministers, Meeting in the Kremlin at 2330 hours (Zonnya time) Saturday 23 June 2007 in Zonnya to vote against this Repeal.

While Our Glorious Democratic Republic's Labor unions and controlling Soviets are one and the same. We feel that the repeal of this bill would not be in the best interests of the World Wide Proletariat.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwikian UN Ambassador.

We feel that the repeal of this bill would not be in the best interests of the World Wide Proletariat.Eviscerate the proletariat!

Ahem.

Sure, the wording of this repeal isn't so hot, and there's some factual errors, and... um... some outright lies...

Where was I?

Oh, yeah. Lesser of two evils. Were the Hack a voting member, we would whole-heartedly endorse this repeal. Since we're not, we don't care as much. Actually, we rather like other nations hobbling themselves with worthless unions...

The Hack is AGAINST the repeal of "Right to Form Unions".


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Can't imagine that I'd support this. For one thing, how do unions undermine socialism and communism? They all seem to work towards the same goal (better treatment of labor/more restrictions on corporate practices). I can understand that in a socialist or communist society, unions might not be necessary, but that doesn't mean they can't be guaranteed for those that wish them.

And as far as the natural regulation that preserves unions in capitalist markets? If we were allowed to cite extradimensional examples, I might have a refutation to this. Other than that...

...yeah.

-the Plutonian ambassador

Unless someone is planning on drafting a new resolution to protect Union Rights and Regulations on forming Unions, Granradia will abstain for now. If not, we stand opposed.

- Mr. Raphiel Yustogovich
- UN Representative of The Confederacy of Granradia
- UN Delegate of the Region of Terferti

Despite my previous repeal attempt, I am not sure I can vote for this. The representative from Kivisto once brought up the fact that repeals stay on the books forever; this idea is discouraging me from supporting this repeal, which contains many arguments that are -- as I mentioned when I saw the first draft -- false.

Undecided, and most likely against.

312 approvals.

Does anyone know what the record of approvals for a proposal is?

312 approvals.

Does anyone know what the record of approvals for a proposal is?

I don't know, but it was probably set one of those times when we had half a dozen resolutions at quorum waiting for their turn at vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Federation of Serekian States approves this appeal.

A government should be allowed to make it's own decisions in regards to the establishment and existence of Unions - Unions oft work against the economic goals of a government and thus undermine the government's plan for the economy. In the long term economic picture, Unions can lead to corporations outsourcing jobs for the sake of cheaper labour.

The Federation of Serekian States does, however, believe that workers need their rights protected. The appeal of said resolution is an unfortunate need - primarily to protect sovereign nations' decision that directly effect their economy.

The Federation of Serekian States would look favourably upon any attempt to create an alternate resolution that would protect the rights of labourers without compromising a nation's right to oversee it's own economy.

- Serge Davko, Chief Ambassador to the UN, Federation of Serekian States

The right to form unions is an integral right in all nations. As you mention, unions are more or less redundant in socialist or communist nations, but in many of these systems the workers are abused more. The original bill may have some wording issues, but that's not enough to warrant a repeal.

Opposed.

As a new member of the NSUN, the Republic of Lazy Reason is indeed honoured to make its first post here to debate upon the currently proposed resolution.

As of now, the Republic of Lazy Reason stands against this resolution, but before the Republic of Lazy Reason would like to call upon the submitter of this resolution to clarify a few doubts:

1) How does Resolution #149 forbid the contractual surrending of union rights by any worker?

2) How is a controlled market mutually exclusive with the creation and existence of trade unions?

As of now, these are the few queries the Republic of Lazy Reason would like to pose. Now to elaborate upon the stand of the Republic of Lazy Reason.

The Republic of Lazy Reason is concerned that the proposed repeal resolution includes too many scenarios, or what this delegate would label, "What if-s". While a good and sound resolution would require a display of the resolution's considerationg for various factors and various plausible scenarios, it is hardly justified to disqualify a resolution because it does not include enough consideration for various scenarios.

Take for example this particular clause in this repeal resolution: "...fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialogue between associates".

With all due respect, the Republic of Lazy Reason would like to doubt the credibility and plausibility of this particular clause. While warring may happen between rival mobs, open hostilities between mobs only happen because they wish to enhance their own interest by weakening a rival mob. In the context of trade unions, the Republic of Lazy Reason wonders why would trade unions even engage in warring, if it does not protect nor enhance their own interest? Wouldn't it be in the unions' best interest that they collaborate to defend and ensure the welfare of their member workers? Furthermore, why would unions from different sectors even bother to war with one another, when they have a different group of member workers with a different set of needs and wants? Why would the union representing teachers feel threatened by the union representing coal miners? Perhaps, the submitter would like to clarify on this too.

This is just but a small fraction of the reason upon which the Republic of Lazy Reason stands upon to oppose this repeal resolution. For now, oppose.

IC:
When I first read the repeal, I thought, "You must be joking!" But now, after a second read, and a little consideration, I decided to pull my vote from the floor, and here's why:

We need work unions, regardless of the political situation. Even the communist countries, if you read the original communist philosophies, whoever it was that wrote them.

However, some unions may take on some very heavy-handed techniques, and can even cause (as the resolution makes an example of) some fairly severe and sometimes irreparable damage.

However, to remove the right to unionism may cause just as irreversible damage to the economy and business as well.

Repealling this resolution, yes, will not ban unionism altogether; however, as I have stated, unionism, depending on how it is implemented in the country, or even in a specific area of the country, or not implemented, it can cause great devastating effects of business.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

(OOC: For the (off-)record, I had to think a lot about what happens here in Australia. Before any of you think, "Oh yes, you mean the great fictitious land of Australia in the that wonderful, magical, non-existent world called the Real World, whose situations and circumstances have absolutely no effect on this world, and therefore this resolution, and making your entire debate useless, worthless, and just plain moot," I am not, I repeat not, sourcing here--hell, I had to try and avoid using the name Karl Jung in the IC text above. The events in Australia have merely influenced my thinking, but they are not the source of my debate.
Now I've had my rant, allow me to continue...While non-unionism can be troublesome enough, like the Waterfront scandal of '97 (okay, yes, there was a union involved in there somewhere, but that ain't the point), events like the recent assaults by Unionists also gives an extreme look about unions.
Okay, that's my two OOC cents. And if you wish to have a go at me about this, you had a choice to ignore this part, you chose to read it, and I told you exactly what I was writing in this part.)

I vote nay;

The aforementioned vagueness of #149 allows contries to build upon this resolution, giving the freedom to structure union laws as seen fit. Given that this seems to be the main argument, I think that this resolution does not have enough backbone to construct a real argument against the mandatory union freedom laws.

Absolutely OPPOSED.

Assume IC unless otherwise specified, please.

ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of Unions in certain economic and governmental structures;

NOTING that the benefits of a union can only be truly realized in a society where workers have the option to contractually surrender their union rights;

OOC: Both of these statements assume a one-dimensional view of unions based on the RL experience of the writer. I simply cannot believe that in a fictional world like NS there isn't sufficient imagination to think about how unions COULD be made to work, or how they would work, in any other system besides capitalism or socialism.

IC: These clauses are blatant assumptions without support of any kind in reality.

NOTING the tendency of natural regulation that occurs in capitalist markets to ensure Unions are preserved;

IC: Which tendency is this? Where has it been noted? Surely no union has ever been preserved without governmental/legislative support of some kind. Otherwise, those in charge of the companies/industries involved would hire scabs or bust unions...

OOC: ...as they did in the US before labor laws were passed. Or have you never read any Steinbeck?

NOTING the absence of necessity for Unions in controlled markets (given the nature of a government run by the workers);

So every controlled market is controlled by the workers? Come on, that shows less a lack of imagination and more a lack of simple observation.

CONCERNED with the restrictions an overarching, international protection of Unions places on some forms of government;

Such as?

CONCERNED with certain practical errors present in the resolution;

Very few resolutions are so perfectly written that no "practical errors" are present. If there is a preponderance of errors in a given resolution, repeal should certainly be considered. That's simply not the case here, especially when the repeal lists none of them -- if they're heinous enough to earn repeal for the whole resolution, surely they'd be enumerated in the text of the repeal...

OBSERVING ideological shortcomings of the resolution, namely that it:

...like the "ideological shortcomings" listed here. Ignoring for a moment that the phrase "ideological shortcomings" is incredibly subjective as it's being used here, let's continue.

-undermines some forms of government, such as socialism and communism, that do not operate under a free-market system.

How?

-undermines many forms of economic policy, such as a strictly free-market system, by mandating government intervention via requiring arbitration and enforcement to be supplied.

IC: How is this undermining? How does collective bargaining without fear of being fired or killed for doing so undermine free-market capitalism?

OOC: The free market, as can be easily seen in the US, will pay the lowest possible wages, and pay them to non-citizens if it can get away with it at all. I am all for the free market, but without some form or regulation, it will screw the greatest number of people for the greatest amount of profit it can while trumpeting freedom at the top of its lungs.

-undermines individual governments by prohibiting said governments from temporarily suspending Union rights, regardless of natural disaster, medical emergency or war.

Please show this Assembly exactly where in the original Resolution you can find wording that supports this charge.

-undermines and cripples start-up small businesses by allowing employees of any size business to Unionize and strike, regardless of their motivation or contractual obligations; and additionally undermines small businesses by removing the ability to avoid (as a method of self-preservation) hiring employees with such rights by guaranteeing these rights to all members of the workforce.

You've got a point here, right up until you basically claim that the resolution forbids business (size is irrelevant) from hiring those people not granted protection under the law. That's a complete overreach, as neither this repeal nor the original resolution makes reference to worker visas which may or may not confer workers' rights to those entering each nation from abroad to work. And that's because that would have been to broad a scope for a single resolution to address.

This resolution does not mandate how nations follow its provisions to a micromanaging level of detail. Again, this repeal suffers from a lack of imagination and strikes me as someone who just doesn't like unions trying to make their point using the Assembly as their stage. That's fine, I suppose, but it's not grounds to strike down a typically functional resolution.

-undermines the privacy of employer-employee negotiations by publicly mandating certain unavoidable contract laws; and that the resolution provides no method for employers to guarantee employees will not fully invoke these rights with no provocation, regardless of the need for such a guarantee.

Aside from being a confusing statement, it's unsupported. Again, the resolution is not perfect -- few are. But if we're going to strike down functional legislation by listing a microscopic analysis of everything they don't do, we may as well start from scratch...and prepare to read some pretty tortuous stuff.

-undermines employers in free-market systems, by allowing the employee a perfectly legal route to indefinitely preserve their job, regardless of any reason, no matter how viable (including information dissemination and violation of business practicum), for their dismissal from their place of work.

Scare tactics. "We can't fire anyone!" Has this complain EVER come up? Anywhere?

There are better resolutions than this one to go after and with far better reasons. This repeal is a reaction based on ideological harangues rather than any kind of logic or evidence. This Assembly simply cannot bow to pressure from paranoid propagandists who seem to believe that completely unregulated commerce is the only way the whole world should be run.

This resolution simply asks that the formation of unions be decriminalized. If your own economic system doesn't support unions, then guess what? None will successfully form. Taking the right to form unions away from all nations because some nations don't have a structure that needs them is akin to taking the rights of minorities away from the UN because there are some UN nations who don't have minority populations.

Vote AGAINST this repeal.

The arguments for this repeal make no sense.

"undermines individual governments by prohibiting said governments from temporarily suspending Union rights, regardless of natural disaster, medical emergency or war."

The orginal reolution specifically prevents necesary public service sectors from going on strike, but provides BINDING arbitration in these cirumcstances.

Additionally it complains that binding arbitration could fail, even though the original resolution required that both parties submit to this BINDING arbitration.

If a socialist or communist government claims it is run by workers unions, then clearly this government would have no problem having its unions be legal, since of course all this resolution was doing was legalizing the formation of their own government.

If a capitalist government is worried about unions damaging business then clearly they don't care about the welfare of their workers who might desire some kind of recourse against unfair treatment.

The original resolution was very good, and we should not repeal it based upon this poorly thought out attempt at repeal which seems to have been written by someone who did not even bother to read the original resolution.

We reject the repeal. Membership of a union - which will mean different things in different contexts - is a basic human right. It is the UN role to protect such rights.

Vote against.

Against. This resolution doesn't seem to have much of a point other than to disable a legitimate and socially beneficial system.

If right-wingers want to propagandize on behalf of their real world politics they should get a blog, not use this game. It is also unfortunate, but not surprising, to note the dishonesty employed by the right-wing assessor of the resolution targeted for repeal. Voting against Cristia Agape's resolution.

Vehemently against. Not allow people to form unions? Why not just put them in shackles and chains and whip them? This proposal is a joke and anyone who know the meaning of civil rights should vote it down.

I apologise if some of these arguments have already been raised: I'm afraid I've been absent from the floor for the past few days, attending the Quintessential music festival. George is still stuck in the mud, and apparently he thinks he is an orange, meaning I'll have to handle this one.

This repeal is absolute dreck. I mean, you really have to work at it to produce something like this: not a silly little idea spun out in five ideas, but a real graft to churn out such a monstrously awful calamity.

In truly annoying UN ping-pong style:
ADMIRING the intentions of the original resolution as honorable and defensible;
The intention of the original resolution was to replace The Rights of Labor Unions as fully as possible. I challenge anyone from the region that drafted this to defend that.
NOTING that the benefits of a union can only be truly realized in a society where workers have the option to contractually surrender their union rights;
If this means closed shops can be bad, then yes, this is true. But it's just irrelevant: you can easily pass national laws against such under Clause 8, and Clause 7 prohibits discrimination based on union membership. In other words, someone can obviously choose to abstain from union membership and expect equal treatment.

So why this was included, I don't really know. Presumably because there wasn't already enough useless garbage clogging up this spectacular turd of a repeal?
NOTING the tendency of natural regulation that occurs in capitalist markets to ensure Unions are preserved;
Uh, wha? The free market ensures unions are preserved in much the same way as a hot air dryer ensures ice creams are preserved. Besides, isn't that a good thing (for capitalist economies)? Every person competing according to their own ability, instead of being tied to collective action? Odd for a conservative region to invoke ultra-Marxist rhetoric, but I suppose whatever sounds fancy enough, so long as you can hawk your region?
NOTING the absence of necessity for Unions in controlled markets (given the nature of a government run by the workers);
This is definitely the best line in the repeal: it really brings out the true colours of the submitters. A 'controlled market' is 'run by the workers'? I suppose if any regulatory law is the political equivalent of revolutionary socialism, this sort of repeal is much more understandable.
-undermines some forms of government, such as socialism and communism, that do not operate under a free-market system.
Um, no, it doesn't, chiefly because nothing in the resolution assumes a free-market system. Maybe you could point out the part that does?
-undermines many forms of economic policy, such as a strictly free-market system, by mandating government intervention via requiring arbitration and enforcement to be supplied.
It doesn't undermine them, because vaguely competent economies are capable of balancing some meagre respect for human rights with economic progress. But in any case, so what? The UN isn't bound to respect every ideology. It can't outright ban systems, but if it had to completely allow absolute laissez-faire capitalism it couldn't really do anything. Why would anarcho-capitalists join the UN?
-undermines individual governments by prohibiting said governments from temporarily suspending Union rights, regardless of natural disaster, medical emergency or war.
Eh, I suppose, but you could just drop from the UN anyway.
-undermines and cripples start-up small businesses by allowing employees of any size business to Unionize and strike, regardless of their motivation or contractual obligations; and additionally undermines small businesses by removing the ability to avoid (as a method of self-preservation) hiring employees with such rights by guaranteeing these rights to all members of the workforce.
It's pretty unlikely small business workers would feel the need to unionise, for precisely the reason you've just presented: they're so much more integral to the business operation that they're not expendable like one from a mass pool of workers, and can therefore argue on their own two feet with much more success. Besides, just withhold their wages.

So, abjectly silly and contradictory.
-undermines the privacy of employer-employee negotiations by publicly mandating certain unavoidable contract laws; and that the resolution provides no method for employers to guarantee employees will not fully invoke these rights with no provocation, regardless of the need for such a guarantee.
Even more contradictory! At first, it says it undermines privacy of contract rights; at second, it says it should undermine it even more with extra requirements. Which is to be?
-undermines employers in free-market systems, by allowing the employee a perfectly legal route to indefinitely preserve their job, regardless of any reason, no matter how viable (including information dissemination and violation of business practicum), for their dismissal from their place of work.
If you've stopped paying them, you can hire someone else in their stead, without firing them. It's a legal route, but it's a pretty hard one, what with receiving no money and all. When the author of this repeal grows up and enters the real world, he'll find this an important consideration.
-fails to even define 'Union', effectively enabling any single individual to possess the rights "reserved" to a fully operable Union, or allowing a nation to set such strict requirements on the definition as to prevent a Union from actually existing.
Hahahaha! Oh Jesus tittyfucking Christ, this is incredible! So, we can ignore every single thing in this repeal? Because apparently, we can define away 'union' to avoid any problem. So why don't you just do that? Also, if you complain it does not define 'union', it is totally impossible to complain it mandates anything with regards to 'union', by very virtue of the absence of definition. So unbearably stupid.
-fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialogue between associates.
How can any of this be true, if it doesn't define 'union'? I've just decided we're going to define 'union' as 'a group for the collective representation of people who are not CEOs'.
-is self-contradictory in Clause #8 by giving no hierarchy; effectively, there is no line drawn between what laws restrict Union activity and what laws Unions must abide by, guaranteeing massive legal battles to determine these lines.
Can you actually not read? Because I've been going pretty hard on this repeal, but genuinely, illiteracy is a terrible problem and you have my fullest sympathies if, as would appear to be the case, you suffer from this ailment. Unions have to respect national laws; national laws must in turn respect this international law. There's your fucking hierarchy.

Quintessence of Dust will be voting AGAINST this; lamentably, we may not have time to assist with a telegram campaign, but if anyone else is organizing one, we might be able to do a few. In no way should our opposition to this repeal be construed as a) opposition to a repeal of this resolution nor b) support for what sort of statements we expect to come from the sponsor of the original resolution, and their region.

-- Samantha Benson,
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

Hahahaha! Oh Jesus tittyfucking Christ, this is incredible! So, we can ignore every single thing in this repeal? Because apparently, we can define away 'union' to avoid any problem. So why don't you just do that? Also, if you complain it does not define 'union', it is totally impossible to complain it mandates anything with regards to 'union', by very virtue of the absence of definition. So unbearably stupid.

So unbearably ridiculous. You are opposed to the repeal because the resolution in question effectively doesn't do anything as it leaves the definition of 'union' open to individual nation? So you want to keep resolutions that can just be ignored?

Respect could prove useful next time you comment on the forum.

So unbearably ridiculous. You are opposed to the repeal because the resolution in question effectively doesn't do anything as it leaves the definition of 'union' open to individual nation? So you want to keep resolutions that can just be ignored?

Respect could prove useful next time you comment on the forum.

I struggle to see how the original resolution could be ignored in such a way. I was under the impression that when a term was not defined, it must be used according to a commonly-accepted, dictionary definition. I mean, I'm sure there's some way you could wriggle out of it, but really...

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

As President of the Flibbleite UN Representatives Union #1 I find this attempt to repeal this resolution repugnant. And so, just as I did last time a repeal of this resolution came up for vote, I cast my vote AGAINST, and go on strike until this repeal is defeated.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative ON STRIKE

The original resolution may not be as boxed in as the author of the repeal resolution would like, however it makes allowances for arbitration, discrimination prevention, the right to withhold wages of striking workers, and more.

It is the position of HawaiianFreedom, that the original resolution while not a perfect solution for every nation is by far helpful to most nations striving to preserve worker rights and find a higher standard of living in the workplace.

Communist, Free-Market and other nations that give more thought to social wel-fare or pure capitalism have laws already in place to handle situations where unions might come up. With social wealth spready more evenly in purely Communist nations, worker wages would fairly compensate the needs of their people, unless the nation's citizens wanted to change their nation's government.

Free-Market nations have a much more independent take on wealth and would have problems dealing with unions that might form, unless they use their purely capitalistic laws to entertain other unions to compete for wages, which in such a society would be completely fair to the people that choose to live with that style of government.

The definition of Union wasn't clearly spelled out either in the original resolution or in the repeal documentation. An amendment to the original would be a better choice to this matter than a pure repeal. So, HawaiianFreedom is against the repeal of the original resolution.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Because we haven't unions anyway, we have no interest either way, and, for the time being, we are abstaining.

Though we feel compelled to cast a sympathy vote against for all our democratic friends.

Plus, we also accept... other forms of persuasion.

*places jar labeled "Bribes" on desk*

~Dr. Jules Hodz

So unbearably ridiculous. You are opposed to the repeal because the resolution in question effectively doesn't do anything as it leaves the definition of 'union' open to individual nation? So you want to keep resolutions that can just be ignored?

Now read what she wrote. Of the many grounds on which Miss Benson is opposed to this repeal, one is that even by its own loopy standards it is inconsistent. If it's really important that 'union' isn't defined, then every other argument in the repeal is false. I think you missed the searing sarcasm in those words.

Also Sam needs to lay off the brownies for a bit :-)

Well Zurgbek, for one, politely sends its regards to all of you, and promptly wishes to tell all of the people voting for the Repeal of the Right to Form Unions that they are all evil Communists and need to get lives.

We are, of course, voting against the Repeal.

Thank you for your time, and may all you 'for' voting Commies have a nice day under the Stalinist Regime.

The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick strongly opposes this repeal. The logic in it is flawed. Also it is is repealing good and we feel necessary legislation.

While the "unions" of Zyrwick are also the soviets that run the factories and farms of the Democratic Republic. The same cannot be said of other nations. We oppose this on the grounds that this repeal will greatly harm our Proletarian Comrades in the Capitalist Nations.

Maxim Ulyanov
General Secretary of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick.

You are opposed to the repeal because the resolution in question effectively doesn't do anything as it leaves the definition of 'union' open to individual nation? So you want to keep resolutions that can just be ignored?
False. I don't agree that not defining 'union' creates this problem for the resolution: but it is stupid for the repeal to make the claim given elsewhere it charges the resolution with empowering unions to produce specific abuses. So, to rephrase your statement:

'I am opposed to the repeal because it says that the resolution effectively doesn't do anything and says that the resolution cannot just be ignored, and voting for something holding both positions would make my head explode.'
Respect could prove useful next time you comment on the forum.
Indeed: I gave the repeal all the respect it deserved.
Also Sam needs to lay off the brownies for a bit :-)
Noted: I was a little cranky last night. I'll go twirl my glowsticks in the Strangers' Bar for a bit.
-- Samantha Benson

The Communist Union of Worldwide Ministries supports this repeal although i didn't know that i already have voted in this poll:confused:

Our Leader could not make it to this meeting today, so I (His Sister and High Chief of Staff) will take the place for him.

The Fair, Grand, benevolent Dictator of Crendenia supports the repeal of this act, mainly due to:

"Fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialogue between associates."

We have strict business laws in effect in our country, to keep the rich from becoming too powerful. As a communism we don't strive to create a classless society, but for the common people to at least have a stand on the CEO's level, almost. And lets face it, do those CEO's really need more money?

We also do not wanting our Armed Forces to go on strike, this is Absents without Official Leave and is a a very serious crime, so serious that you will be charged with Treason.

Signing out,
Leader of Crendenia, Brendan K..
High Chief of Crendenia Staff, Nancy K..

"Fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialogue between associates."

We have strict business laws in effect in our country, to keep the rich from becoming too powerful. As a communism we don't strive to create a classless society, but for the common people to at least have a stand on the CEO's level, almost. And lets face it, do those CEO's really need more money?
While I'm sure your people find that stance very reassuring, the resolution has absolutely no effect on it at all. It looks like the repeal has succeeded in its intent of stirring up panic without having any basis in reality; shorn of the big words, this clause complains that CEO, owners, managers and so on have the right to form unions themselves. Well, whoopee. This means that they can go to themselves and demand more money, otherwise they'll go on strike. Since their striking would save the company huge sums of money, I don't imagine anyone's going to be too terrified by that idea. Besides, if they were going to pay themselves more they don't need to ask!

In other words, that clause is really a big pile of nothing. All it's trying to do is pretend that class hatred exists because of unions, conveniently ignoring several millennia of history saying otherwise.

We also do not wanting our Armed Forces to go on strike, this is Absents without Official Leave and is a a very serious crime, so serious that you will be charged with Treason.
If you read the resolution, rather than relying on the exceedingly dodgy interpretation of the repeal, you'll find that your Armed Forces are not given the right to strike.

The Republic of Lazy Reason is very puzzled by the dichotomisation between the Capitalists and the Socialists, the Economic Left Wingers and the Economic Right Wingers. The Republic of Lazy Reason would entreat all member states to recognise the effective role of trade unions in all forms of economic system, even under Communist systems of governance, where the trade union is THE de facto Communist Party.

This repeal obviously and blatantly lacks the sufficient justifications and grounds to reject resolution #149. Resolution #149 is a flexible resolution, which allows governments to exercise their individual sovernignity when legislating on trade unions while ensuring the protection of trade unions. The repeal seems highly unreasonable to demand from resolution #149 a fool-proof and perfect resolution, while the repeal hardly stands up to inquiry and scrutiny.

Please, member states of the NSUN, use your votes wisely and abstain from voting for the sake of voting.

Before reading this debate we were intending to abstain, however the arguments presented have induced us to change our stance and as such Sanguinex now opposes this repeal. As has been shown by other delegates many of the arguments in the proposed repeal are false, and while the original resolution might not be entirely airtight, we recognise that is difficult for a resolution to be entirely airtight and please everyone at the same time. Additionally this repeal is decidedly less airtight than the original resolution.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

We oppose this on the grounds that this repeal will greatly harm our Proletarian Comrades in the Capitalist Nations.I thought you were Captain National Sovereignty.

Guess it doesn't apply to capitalist nations, huh?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I thought you were Captain National Sovereignty.

Guess it doesn't apply to capitalist nations, huh?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Ambassador Leary,

To begin with, who is this "Captain National Sovereignty"? I know of no such person.

We support the right of the citizens of capitalist nations to form unions. If their government wants to prohibit them from doing so, we cannot personally dictate to them that they must.

However, the UN Resolution 149 states that nations can not prohibit their citizens from forming unions. This Resolution was passed by the majority of UN member nations and as such was agreed to by the UN nations. And we have yet to see a legitimate argument for repeal.

UN Resolution 149 is flexible and makes allowances for many different types of government, due to its lack of a "definition". Many communist nations such as Zyrwick the "Union" and the "Soviet" are one and the same. As there is no capitalist class to be protected from, the workers do not need a "union" for protection but rather for industrial organization.


Being Marxist-Leninists we understand the the class struggle, which is still going on in many countries requires trade unions to protect the working peoples from the capitalist exploiters. Given that and the flawed logic, indeed outright lies, behind this repeal, the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick cannot possibly see this repeal as beneficial to the World Proletariat. Indeed these trade unions are prime recruiting grounds for our comrades in foreign nations, and as such one cog in the great machine that will lead to Communism's Inevitable Victory.

Maxim Ulyanov
General Secretary of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick.

You completely missed the point, Secretary Ulyanov.

Your nation has banged on incessantly about the inalienable right of nations to chart their own course. Your nation has even argued against potential resolutions that are international in scope and ones that have no effect on national sovereignty in the slightest, all while claiming to do so in the name of national sovereignty.

And yet, you have no trouble trampling all over a nation's sovereignty when it comes to pimping your particular socio-economic politics. If a nation wants to exert its sovereign right to rule itself and ban unions, it can't, because the UN won't let it. And your nation that won't shut up about national sovereignty is more than willing to let this happen. Hey, fuck the capitalists, we've got a class war to start!

So, your government's true position, is that you are will to wave the flag of national sovereignty when your government doesn't like something, but when it comes to your twisted economic theories, you're more than willing to stomp everyone else into the ground.

What's next? Free speech, but only when it echoes your political views?

National sovereigntist my achin' ass.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Politics is the art of duplicity Ambassador Leary. And we do believe in the rights of nations to chart their own course. However, when it comes to a battle between national sovereignty--which isn't even an issue in this repeal--and communism. Communism will win.

Indeed As I stated previously Resolution 149 was agreed to by the majority of UN nations and as such is enforced in all UN nations. I believe that was the point of voting on it to start with. As such if a nation wants to ban unions and is a UN nation they can simply leave the UN and ban the unions. Problem solved.

As you have stated:

but when it comes to your twisted economic theories

We can only assume that your represent a capitalist nation. And then further bring up the argument:

you're more than willing to stomp everyone else into the ground.


So then let me ask you from where do the profits made by your bourgeoisie and corporations make their profits? Oh I'm sure I'll hear some voodoo economic theory that its due to mark ups or whatever the theory de jour is.

However, our in depth analysis of economics under capitalism and feudalism has revealed to us that it is labor that creates all wealth. And as such all profit made from labor other than one's own is exploitation. As such capitalism by its very nature stomps the working people into the ground for the benefit of a very few. As such, the need of the much larger working class in all nations needs to be protected from the capitalist one. One way to do this is through labor unions.

Maxim Ulyanov
General Secretary People's Communist Party of Zyrwick.

The best way to control a country is to built up organisations who led the groups of society!

trade unions are good. if you have a big trade union their members are easy to control. if some trade unions become rebellious just kill their leader!

for dictatorships trade unions are good!

DO NOT REPEAL!



Embertin Whitescull
minister of the Foreign Office of the United Socialist States of Kholdanius

Spare me your dissertations, you hypocrite. You're just another in a long line of ideological thugs who hide behind sovereignty when it's convenient, and piss on it when it isn't.

I've made my point and you've explicitly confirmed it. Don't try to bury it under the pap of your economic theories.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I regret that it may be too much too ask for Ambassadors Ulyanov and GramiKo not to sabotage cogent arguments against repeal of this resolution with their incessant and contradictory assertions of national sovereignty in the face of logic and reasoning. However, I implore delegates and representatives to pay heed to their hearts and their heads and reject the duplicitous rhetoric deployed by the repeal author. Nonsense and bad logic begets nonsense and bad logic; let us not tread this painful path.

Also, on a matter of similar international importance, what blighter ran off with my rice wine? I have a thirst that needs urgent and radical quenching.

Benedictions,

You know, I think I'm switching my position on this. As much as I feel as the resolution is very flawed indeed (I don't want my nurses working to rule or working slowly just because they aren't allowed to strike, and I don't want my munitions workers going on strike demanding 12,000,000 pounds per annum in a time of war, to name a couple of examples), there are some fabulous loopholes. For example, whilsy we aren't allowed to fire workers, we can still change their job so to one they have no qualifications for or experience in, then fire them for incompetence. Or tar and feather them. Or hit them over the heads with cricket bats. Or, although this may be specific to Cobdenia, shoot them (Cobdenian law maintains that in murder trials, "Sounds like the bugger derserved it to me" is a legal verdict.)

So, I whilst I don't believe we should be enshrining the right of unionisation, the original resolution is so delightfully loophole encrusted, and the repeal is so annoyingly boring with all it's economic system claptrap, I am changing to against. Even if I admit that, if all that ideological paragraph were sent the way of the dodo I would probably vote for, I am now against. So nyah.

To begin with, who is this "Captain National Sovereignty"? I know of no such person.He's distantly related to Captain Obvious, His Dad is General Nuisance.

We are opposed, by the way.

I had originally planned to vote for this resolution and repeal "The Right to Form Unions". My sole logic was the right of nations to govern this for themselves without UN intervention, an intervention that seems prolific on the most mundane of topics.

However, after review of some of the more well written arguments in this forum, I find I must reverse my decision. To me getting a fair wage isn't a "right", but being able to pursue happiness is. Employers should have the right to employ, or terminate that employment, those they want to. But, when an employers abuses that right by underpaying the employed there is a problem. What other forum would the agrieved employees have other than a Union? Mind you, I'm fundamentally against unions. In my mind they have outlived their purpose and have grown to have too much power and are corrupt without peer. But still, the employed need a forum to air their grievances, be they salary or benefits. Without unions this couldn't occur. Based on this I am forced to accept unions, but I believe they should be regulated in what they can influence in the employer / employee relationship.

After careful consideration I find that the original Resolution covers this 'adequately'. Perhaps instead of a repeal the original merely need an Amendment.

Thoughtfully,
First Prism of Monochromatica
UN Delate - The Colorless Lands

Well now that we have had hopefully our daily quota of ad hominum attacks. Believe me I have been called worse than a hypocrite or an "ideological thug" and lived. Perhaps we can get back onto topic as to why this repeal is not necessary and its argument flawed.

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 organizations 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.

There it is again just so everyone can read it again who has read it. And so I can go line by line and defeat the arguments of the repeal.

-undermines some forms of government, such as socialism and communism, that do not operate under a free-market system.


First off this observation is blatantly false. The first section of UNR#149 stipulates that a union is for the collective representation of the workers. As we understand the word collective it means: A) formed or gathered together by collecting; B) Of, relating to, or or proceeding from a number of persons or things together. Perhaps there is a different definition for collective representation in Cristia Agape, than there is in Zyrwick but that is not the point.

Many communist and socialist nations have bodies that collectively represent the workers in a workplace, be it a farm, or factory. In Zyrwick they are called Soviet (The Zyrwickian word for council--meaning in this case a worker's council). This council not only decides what is to be produced at the farm or factory but also what each worker shall be paid. All workers have a vote in who is to be their management and in most phases of industrial or agricultural planning. Any and all surplus values generated are shared equally among the workers.

-undermines many forms of economic policy, such as a strictly free-market system, by mandating government intervention via requiring arbitration and enforcement to be supplied.

This is also untrue. A union may go on strike and the workers striking will and/or may (as can be seen above the wording is "employers are allowed..." have their wages withheld. This does not stop the practice of an employer hiring non-union workers (commonly known as scabbing) nor does it prohibit employers from hiring illegal immigrants (who due to their illegal status generally do not tend to unionize for fear of deportation). So a "strictly free-market system" is possible. Also government intervention is not required except in certain cases stipulated in section 3. (Thats what that "such as but is not limited too..." means.)

-undermines individual governments by prohibiting said governments from temporarily suspending Union rights, regardless of natural disaster, medical emergency or war.


While workers do have the right to form or join unions under UNR#149, and nations may not temporarily suspend union rights (the rest being simply empty rhetoric). The national government can allow the practice known as "Union Busting" where employers systematically hire non-union workers to replace union workers. Also during times of war, unions generally become much stronger as production for the war effort becomes a priority and a government which otherwise would not support unionization would be much more prone to tolerate it, due to a lack of manpower. Also workers in industries directly related to war-time military production could be exempted under section 3 sub-section c.

-undermines and cripples start-up small businesses by allowing employees of any size business to Unionize and strike, regardless of their motivation or contractual obligations; and additionally undermines small businesses by removing the ability to avoid (as a method of self-preservation) hiring employees with such rights by guaranteeing these rights to all members of the workforce

This is blatantly untrue. Start-up businesses and smaller businesses are generally better able to handle things through individual representation. In a business that is relatively small, lets say less than fifty persons total, everyone knows everyone else and each one is indispensable to the business. Many times the costs associated with training a replacement worker is much less than the costs of an increase of benefits or wages that the "business owner" would incur. Which in reality would mean that a trade union in this instance (outside of the Soviet-style system like Zyrwick has) would be impractical. Also as all workers are guaranteed these rights to join a union that is trade related, the workers could elect to do that. And again the employer can replace them should they go on strike.

-undermines the privacy of employer-employee negotiations by publicly mandating certain unavoidable contract laws; and that the resolution provides no method for employers to guarantee employees will not fully invoke these rights with no provocation, regardless of the need for such a guarantee.

This also is blatantly untrue. There is nothing in the resolution that prohibits an employer from firing any worker (usually excused as a disciplinary action of some sort). There is no guarantee that the employer-employee even negotiate at all. Indeed it is possible that in some countries the worker will take what he can get and be happy that he has a job (whether that is due to poor economic conditions or the national government making the economy unfriendly to unionization is irrelevant). Indeed as there is no guarantees that the employer will not fire the worker without provocation and call it "disciplinary", likewise there is no need for this resolution, or any of the unions protected under it to guarantee that they will not strike, except under the exemptions stipulated in section 3.

-undermines employers in free-market systems, by allowing the employee a perfectly legal route to indefinitely preserve their job, regardless of any reason, no matter how viable (including information dissemination and violation of business practicum), for their dismissal from their place of work.

This wasn't even discussed in the resolution at all, so how Cristia Agape observed this is beyond me.

AND OBSERVING practical shortcomings of the resolution, namely that it:

-fails to even define 'Union', effectively enabling any single individual to possess the rights "reserved" to a fully operable Union, or allowing a nation to set such strict requirements on the definition as to prevent a Union from actually existing.


Again not true. By not expressly defining what a union is it leaves the definition of unions to the member nations to define for themselves. A "Labor Union for the collective representation of workers" will have a very different meaning in a communist nation like Zyrwick, where we would define it as a Soviet. And would have yet again a different meaning in a purely capitalist nation, or a nation that has regulated capitalism. This provides the necessary flexibility to encompass the 25,000+ nations in the UN (although that number could have been much higher or lower at the time of the passing of the Resolution).

-fails to give recourse to the possibility of failed 'independent arbitration', effectively giving every Union, regardless of industry (including military and medical) the ability to strike, regardless of the harm to the public good.


Again untrue. Military, medical and civilian police forces are expressly forbidden from striking. Also due to the "such as but not limited too..." language in Section 3 sub-section c, could also include industries that are vital to the nation. For example lets say that Country xyz is heavily dependent on coal, and therefore coal miners. The government can step in and break up a coal miner strike because to not do so could cause severe civil as well as economic unrest.

-fails to differentiate different groups of employees and associates, effectively preserving the right of every group - including CEOs and owners - to Unionize, creating an atmosphere of warring Unions between levels rather than open dialog between associates.

This argument is just plain silly. One is either a worker or an employer. Should CEOs or owners decide they want a pay raise there is no practical need to strike...they can merely give themselves one and be done with it. I do not know how Cristia Agape is defining "associate", but the only interpretation that I can come up with is that this would pertain to independent contractors, which would be covered under national contractual law regardless of the right of workers to form unions or not.

-is self-contradictory in Clause #8 by giving no hierarchy; effectively, there is no line drawn between what laws restrict Union activity and what laws Unions must abide by, guaranteeing massive legal battles to determine these lines.

I completely fail to see how UNR#149 is self-contradictory. Section 8 states that unions must obey the national laws. Granted unions like any other organization (political parties for example, or businesses for an other) must obey national law. Added to that, Section 8 stipulates "that national laws shall not be made to impair guarantees provided for in this resolution." Meaning just like any other UN Resolution UN member nations must abide by the resolution. Hardly contradictory.

Maxim Ulyanov
General Secretary of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick.

-snip, some very good arguments and thoughts_

After careful consideration I find that the original Resolution covers this 'adequately'. Perhaps instead of a repeal the original merely need an Amendment.

Thoughtfully,
First Prism of Monochromatica
UN Delate - The Colorless Lands

Actually amendments are prohibited under the UN rules. In order to "amend" something the old resolution must be completely repealed and then replaced.

Ambassadors Ulyanov and GramiKo

Incidentally Comrade Ulyanov is not the Zyrwickian UN Ambassador. I, Alexei Ivanovich Gramiko am the Zyrwickian UN Ambassador. Comrade Ulyanov is the General Secretary of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick and the President of the Council of Ministers (As in our head of state and government). This would make Comrade Ulyanov my superior.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

The repeal si based on false arguments

It says that the militar forces can strike, but the resolution 149 say that that is not possible.

It says that the unions would destroy the capitalist company; but it not happens. In a small company there isn't unions, and in the biggest companys the unios improves the workers condition.

And in comunist and socialist countries too there are unions and sidicates, because they are way of popular democracy, as the "soviets". Don't forget the example of "Solidaridad" in Polony, they was a Union.

The resolution that is in votting is usseful for the workers of any governement sistem

Opposing a repeal because it's got more characters than the resolution it's repealing? I was told some of the arguments here would be ridiculous, but this? Wow.

I really hate "Daddy" for sticking me here now.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

REALLY

Also, on a matter of similar international importance, what blighter ran off with my rice wine? I have a thirst that needs urgent and radical quenching.

Benedictions,

Sen Sulla looks over at the Delegate from Dashanzi. The good Senator reaches into his desk and pulls out a bottle of Wild Turkey(TM).
"Its not rice wine, old boy, but its got a kick like a rented mule, and quenches the ol' thirst."
he gives the bottle to one of the Palentine Interns and says,
"Take this over to the esteemed ambassador with my complements."

Sen Sulla pauses for a moment, them he adresses the hall,
"Now as to this current repeal for vote, I'm tentative for because I really hate the Right to form Union legislation. However some delegate I respect like the Cobdenian, Quoddites, and Ausserlanders also make a good arguement for voting against. And since I'm in a bit of a quandry, and a true capitalist at heart, I've decided to once again sell my vote to the highest bidder."

THe good senator pulls out a larger empty Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar and places it on his desk with a sign that reads In God We Trust! All others must pay CASH!

Nonsense and bad logic begets nonsense and bad logic; let us not tread this painful path.Yes, let's not (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12295393&postcount=61). ...

Sen Sulla looks over at the Delegate from Dashanzi. The good Senator reaches into his desk and pulls out a bottle of Wild Turkey(TM).
"Its not rice wine, old boy, but its got a kick like a rented mule, and quenches the ol' thirst."
he gives the bottle to one of the Palentine Interns and says,
"Take this over to the esteemed ambassador with my complements."

Sen Sulla pauses for a moment, them he adresses the hall,
"Now as to this current repeal for vote, I'm tentative for because I really hate the Right to form Union legislation. However some delegate I respect like the Cobdenian, Quoddites, and Ausserlanders also make a good arguement for voting against. And since I'm in a bit of a quandry, and a true capitalist at heart, I've decided to once again sell my vote to the highest bidder."

THe good senator pulls out a larger empty Fine Yeldan Pickle[TM] jar and places it on his desk with a sign that reads In God We Trust! All others must pay CASH!
A shadowy figure appears at Ambassador Sulla's side. With a knowing smile, he quietly hands over a Fine Dashanzi Bribe. Unfortunately for the poor New Cultural Revolutionary, Dashanzi bribes are both non-cash and something of an acquired taste. Senator Sulla finds himself staring at a jar of Dashanzi vodka, subtly flavoured with pickled snake, lizard and locust. Something still appears to be wriggling.

Meanwhile, the nameless functionary makes his way back into the shadows, only to be distracted by a minor kerfuffle. He pauses to look back and sees Minister Gao glugging deeply from the bottle of Wild Turkey and railing at nearby ambassadors.

"...fettipoggery, I tell you, fetti-kuffin'-poggery..."

The functionary shakes his head and quietly slinks away.

Yes, let's not (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12295393&postcount=61). ...
* ooc: I fail to see your point, either in- or out of character. Mind you, I'm possibly being stupid. Or drunk. Or both. Ah, there we are.*

OOC: Heh. I don't seem to see my point either. I must be drunk too. And at only 11 in the morning. Man, I'm slipping.

Also, that post was supposed to have been signed by Cdr. Chiang, but I forgot to add it in.

We're dismayed and, frankly, disgusted that this shoddy repeal is currently well ahead in the voting. The author threw in every argument he could possibly come up with, whether they made sense or not. Much of the logic is badly flawed; most of the rest is highly dubious. And the repeal flatly misrepresents the provision in the resolution on strikes. The author apparently can't even recognize binding arbitration when he sees it.

We argued long and hard against NSUNR #149 during the drafting process and the voting. We would support a reasonable, truthful repeal. We will not vote for this garbage. Voting for something like this simply encourages bad, misleading legislation.

We implore our colleagues who care at all about the quality of proposals placed before this Assembly to vote NO.

By Order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Dear Prime Minister of Ausserland,

We applaud your gentle reference to this proposal as "garbage". We would like to think of it as prime-bull shit. Once again the tendency is clear: no degree of debate is going to dissuade the ignorant mass of yes-sayers from from stampeding along. Proto-Consilience has enjoyed its short stay in the NSUN but by Friday it will be over. It can no longer tolerate the major impact uninformed decision-making is having on its people.

Good luck in your rear-guard action,

The People of Proto-Prime.

Here's a suggestion:

For those of you who actually see flaws in the UN resolution "Right to Form Unions," but support the proposal in principle, a better idea than repealing it would be a resolution to amend it.

Vote [B]against repealing the right to form unions, until a better proposal becomes available.

I would like to take this time to inform the ambassador from Paragoniac that amendments are ILLEGAL. Please take the time to read the UN proposal submission rules and inform yourself as to why this is illegal and what other methods are seen as actionable offenses. You'll save yourself from defenestration that way, as well as keeping yourself out of more serious trouble.

Just a friendly word from someone prone to defenestration of non-rule-readers.

Dear Paragoniac,

The NSUN legislative system does not allow for amendments (however reasonable such an option would be) to existing resolutions. Instead, you have to repeal a resolution in order to replace it with another. Off course, this grants one roughly 3:1 odds that irrespective of what drivel one comes up with in order to repeal a resolution, or in the case of a new resolution what drivel the resolution itself is, as long as it reaches the Assembly for a vote, that the vote will be "yes".

Hope this helps,

The People of Proto-Consilience.

The NSUN legislative system does not allow for amendments (however reasonable such an option would be)

Since a post buried 173 posts deep in a non-sticky thread seems to get ignored, I've added this explanation of amendments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7) to the Rules for UN Proposals. Perhaps you can read it and realize that not all our decisions are arbitrary and designed to piss you off.

I apologize for not realizing amendments don't work here in the U.N. Nevertheless we don't have a better proposal in place to take the place of the resolution up to be repealed.

We in HawaiianFreedom won't be changing our vote on the current resolution.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

i can not understand how the resolution can be polling favourably within the UN & yet a slight majority of people here are against the motion. is it perhaps a reflection of the fact that the right-wing is always good for a draw on the knee-jerk, "F*** YOU" legislation but the more thoughful, socially minded pollies are more likely to visit the forums to post about the injustice of the matter.

i live in a country that it witnessing the death of collective bargaining for employees and the right to free association with a trade movement or union. at the same time, businesses are funded federally to combine their collective bargaining power. i dont think union assocaition or membership should be compulsory but by god, all people should have the right to join one & receive representation.

big business and their fat profit sucking executive be F***ED. give us back our UNIONS!

http://www.nationstates.net/trout_and_kilgore

I'm abstaining from this proposition for now because I see both sides of the debate equally.
On the side for unions, these give government run services/businesses (for example, Schooling and Education) the opportunity to voice themselves amongst the public and cite their rights.
However, on the side against unions, these give government run businesses/services the right to strike whenever they are unhappy (or not!) and thus inconvenience the population that depend on that particular service. And also, as Cristia Agape says: it undermines the government and the businesses that work independantly.
It's Communism vs. Capitalism, if you ask me. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm a firm believer that there has to be a perfect balance between the two "isms", with no extremes, to create a good, strong system of politics. So henceforth, I'm abstaining from the proposition at hand.

I apologize for not realizing amendments don't work here in the U.N. Nevertheless we don't have a better proposal in place to take the place of the resolution up to be repealed.
And we don't because to submit the replacement prior to the passage of the repeal would result in the replacement being deleted for duplication or contradiction (depending on the stance the replacement takes)
i can not understand how the resolution can be polling favourably within the UN & yet a slight majority of people here are against the motion.

That would be because not every one who votes participates in the debate.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

That would be because not every one who votes participates in the debate.


Also not everyone who votes on repeals bothers to read the resolution to be repealed and compares it with the repeal argument.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador.

OOC: Heh. I don't seem to see my point either. I must be drunk too. And at only 11 in the morning. Man, I'm slipping.

Also, that post was supposed to have been signed by Cdr. Chiang, but I forgot to add it in.
* ooc: No problemo. But... man, you keep records of posts from February? Earlier? Does this mean I'll have to put more than five seconds thought into my responses in order to be consistent? I'm doomed! *

* ooc: No problemo. But... man, you keep records of posts from February? Earlier? Does this mean I'll have to put more than five seconds thought into my responses in order to be consistent? I'm doomed! *Some people keep spreadsheets, databases, scores of URL's, 20 page documents on each character they roleplay, etc etc.

I just use my noggin <taps head>

I rise to maintain the position of the USP, we will continue to abstain from voting on this issue. Our "Union Reach Limitation Act" is currently in heavy debate on the floor of our legislature and the President doesn't wish to taint the debate by stating a yea or nay vote in the UN.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

i say 'meh' to the abstainers. i can see both sides of many arguments but that doesn't mean i AGREE with both sides. this is allegedly a forum for political debate. the issue at hand isn't one that tolerates an abstention. at stake is a fundamental right. you either believe in that right or you dont and if you find you dont care for either side of the debate, its best to state that as being your position and not debate the issue at hand. to my mind however, there haven't been too many successful political leaders who remained in office on a platform of "undecided".

vote one for "YOU"RE BOTH RIGHT SO LETS HOLD HANDS"!???

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

this really stinks!

"effectively giving every Union, regardless of industry (including military and medical) the ability to strike, regardless of the harm to the public good."

Why the votes in forum are so not-like the ones on UN?

big business and their fat profit sucking executive be F***ED. give us back our UNIONS!

What I will always fail to understand is the reluctance of some nations in this body to govern themselves, we heard this argument a million times before. If the repeal passes x will happen, our historical sites will be crushed, our toes will be cut off, etc. As if the UN law is the only law the governments will recognize. I realize that UN Law takes precedence over the nation's but where UN Law falls short, why not fill in the blanks with your own laws?

My country has laws which preserve the rights of labor to unionize and take action for better working conditions, our workers are protected by both those laws and the current UN Resolution. Therefore if the repeal passes, literally nothing changes in our country, the unions stay, they are protected. No UN law is needed in this case. Now shall we vote for the repeal because it makes no difference to us anyway? Shall we vote against the repeal because some countries are too complacent to actually pass their own laws? Shall we just vote either way because we might be accused of fence sitting? Or shall we vote opposite the opinion of the nation accusing us of fence sitting?

Yea, Nay, or Abstain is our right as a member of the UN. We still abstain.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

The door to Sammy's office swang open as a leather-corset-clad commando charged into the room: "Ambassador, the State Department would know your recommendation on the vote before the General Assembl--"

Cdr. Chiang stopped as she noticed that the young man in the polo shirt and baggy jeans behind the desk was not the ambassador at all. A muscular Latino seemed to be sitting in for him, lounging back in the office chair like he owned the place, his feet resting on the desktop as he watched a basketball game softly blaring from the ambassador's TV set.

"Uhh, hello, Mr. President. What are you doing here?"

"Oh, hey, what's crackin', Commander?" replied the Destructor. "Alex got pissed off for some reason and told me to come here and not to return till the election was over. ... I can't imagine why (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=532&view=findpost&p=6843321) ..."

"Oh, er, me neither," stammered Chiang.

"So, you know, I came by the UN guy's office hoping he'd give me something to do, but he ain't here, so I thought I'd wait around for Jessie. She's always fun to watch." He removed his shoes from the desk as he got a closer look at the commander's revealing, tight-fitting uniform. "But I guess you'll do," he growled. "So what's up.

"Well, uhh, seeing as how you're the senior official sitting in at the mission for the time being, perhaps you ought to give an opinion on the vote?" Chiang said tentatively, immediately regretting her suggestion.

"What're you UN morons voting on, anyway?"

"Yet another attempt to repeal The Right to Form Unions, sir."

"And what do you think about it?"

"I think it's crap, really, but so is the resolution," Chiang said.

"What resolution?"

"The Right to Form Unions, sir."

"What about it?"

"It's crap."

"What's crap? The repeal or the resolution?"

"Both, Mr. President."

"Both of what?"

Chiang sighed deeply. "Both the resolution -- which allows strikes with potentially dangerous consequences -- and the repeal, which ignores all that and makes a bunch of false statements about ideologies and government systems and such. No one at State really gives a flip enough to make a definitive decision, so they sought the opinion of this mission."

The president gave her a blank stare. "Wait. What are we voting on again?"

Chiang groaned as she shoved a thin file toward the Chief Executive. "It's all right here, Mr. President," she said.

She stood by impatiently as she gave him a few moments to study the folder's contents, wishing sorely that she were someplace else.

"So what are your thoughts, Mr. President?" she finally asked.

"Oh, I dunno about this," Fernanda said as he set down the file. "I think I'll consult the Great Queen Spider!"

He looked about the office nervously for a few moments as Chiang rolled her eyes.

"Where is she anyway?" asked the president.

"I ... don't know," Chiang said oddly.

"Wait a sec ... there is no Great Queen Spider, is there?"

"You might try the Strangers' Bar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12806150#post12806150)," Chiang said dryly.

"Fuck that! You know I only go there to pick up hos; I ain't no spider-hunter--"

"And the repeal, Mr. President? What is your decision?"

"Who cares? Just vote yes, and if anyone in the UN gives you shit about it, blame the spider!"

Chiang scoffed. "You are a master strategist, Mr. President."

"Aren't I though?" Fernanda replied as he turned back to his game, returning his feet to the desktop. "Now get the hell out of my office!"

"This isn't your office, sir--"

"Hey, that's great," Fernanda said absently into the TV screen.

I'd just like to first say that it seems like the authors of both of these proposals have no clue what they are talking about. Because of this, my vote is firmly for the repeal, because then somebody that knows what they're talking about can write a better proposal, and we can have unions that make sense. I'd vote for that.

Egdak's Final Answer On The Repeal: :)



Emperor Jolly Wally the Penguin

Unions are a neccesity and a right that every worker is entitled to. Without unions who would keep the capitalists in line and if unions interfere in the communist system all the better. This law dosen't have to be detailed. For pete sake were giving them the right to make their OWN organizations! How they organize them dosen't concern us. What does concern us is their right to have them. So long as they don't go around killing people on the streets I'd say they're fine.

That is a matter for each sovereign nation to determine, not the UN.

A heated, albeit low-voiced, discussion can be heard from the Altanari delegation's table.

"Are you out of your minds? I'm not casting our vote in favor of this specious claptrap!" Jinella Agaranth snapped.

"Jinella, our orders from Ael Khalas are clear on this one," Markus Paulanus said, vainly trying to quiet the Altanari ambassador. "The King has decided to oppose the establishment of labor unions in Altanar. If you vote against the repeal, you'll be fired...."

"True, but I'm not going to sully myself with this...I won't vote for it or against it. Instead, I'm going straight over to the Strangers' Bar to get drunk, and to hell with the government," Jinella said bitterly, walking out.

A flustered look on his face, Deputy Ambassador Ikir Askanabath quickly said into the microphone, "Um....Altanar will be abstaining at this time." He then ran out after Jinella, leaving Markus sitting at the table shaking his head.

The United Socialist States of Great Kali is totaly against the right to form unions. Unions undermines the effort of the public sector to improve it's governement's economy by pushing them out of buisiness. the smaller enterprises don,t have the backbone to supply their employees with the same work conditions than multinationals. A country's economy is not only made of big buisinesses but mostly from SMEs.

I am not talking out of thin air. This morning, my country sent me the numbers on a survey counducted amongst 70% of the country's SMEs. 90% of them said that in the eventuality of a unionisation of their labor force, they would close down. the USSGK is a small country that thrives on the laboring force of a strong Cheese and Beef exportation. as well as a rapidly growing private sector. if those enterprises would close down, the country ITSELF would go bankrupt. all this because of a UN resolution? Are the UN sure that they want the "blood" of smaller countries that are forced to open their borders and be assimilated by bigger ones just because the laborers were able to Unionise? I don,t think so.

Therefore the USSGK will vote for the repeal of the obligatory right to form Unions. the UN has no buisiness in this, Countries should vote their own laws on the right to form unions and encourage any patriotic delegate that love their countries and it's well-being to vote FOR the repeal of the past resolution.

I would like to thank the UNs to let me speak

Amandar Hadir
delegate of the United Socialist States of Great Kali

Voted against.

For those that know me, this will be no surprise. For those that don't, I'm a leftist socialist union supporting loony, so meh.

For the Nth time, the Assembly is overwhelmingly on one side of an issue and the votes are on the other. I even KNOW why this is the case, and it STILL pisses me off. I'm off t' th' boozer. *SLAM* BARKEEP! ONE FINE YELDAN ALE, PLEASE!

hmmm...against is up?
While repealing the resolution may look bad in the beggining due to the fact that there won't be a resolution to protect unions at all, it is really a positive thing to do because there will definitely be a new and better resolution after a small period of time. Something which nations must support.

In the light of the USP's legislature passing and our President's signing into law our "Labor Union Reach Limitation Act" I am now free to rise in support of this repeal.

We in the USP hold the right of our workers to organize as dear as any of our other undeniable rights, however being a member of the international community do not and should not be required to have the same view. We believe that the vehicle that ensures our workers rights in the USP is a good one. That said, we think that each nation should be on it's own to decide the best way to ensure the rights of it's workers, and that there are certainly enough standing UN laws to ensure that their rights as citizens of UN Member nations will be protected.

Therefore we support the Resolution to Repeal the Right to Form Unions.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

I always find it interesting when the forum poll does not match the trend of the vote. It generally means either that the tide is about to turn or there's a severe lack of people showing interest in the forums.

Only 1% of the voting public ever bothers showing up to any UN vote. Sometimes more, often less. The forum poll, as always, means precisely nothing.

Unions are simply the vehicle for men to come together to collectively bargain for the improvement of their employment. That men and women can come together to collectively bargain, organize, and strike, for better condition and wages is a right that all workers should have.

I oppose the repeal of UN's protection of one of the most fundamental rights of workers.

I also encourage those who mistakenly support the erosion of the rights of man to change their votes.

Unions are simply the vehicle for men to come together to collectively bargain for the improvement of their employment. That men and women can come together to collectively bargain, organize, and strike, for better condition and wages is a right that all workers should have.

Ideally you are correct, but what the esteemed delegate fails to realize is that in some places those vehicles have become more than they were intended for. In my nation they have become political ideologues who force sometime by physical threat those man and women to comply with the wishes of the whole. Which is why we carefully had to structure our "Union Reach Limitation Act" to work around the existing UN doctrine. We feel as though if the Repeal passes we will be able to write more legislation that will further curtail the extra curricular activities of our labor unions, and focus them on what they are intended for. The purposes you stated.

On top of this we agree with the stipulations in the repeal which state that there are problems with the definition of union, what good is it if the management of the major corporations band together and form a union, and as a union they decide that they aren't getting the right amount of respect from the government, so therefore they are going on strike? How does that help the workers if the mangement closes the shop? How would it be fair if half of the workers in a company join union A and half join union B? Allowed under the current law I believe.

I think one of the best things that can happen for workers world-wide is for this to be repealed and then replaced with a clearer resolution. Which is yet another reason why we have voted for the repeal.

And before any of the more JR suggest it, amendments are illegal, please for the love of what you hold dear don't suggest it

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

theres nothing quite like putting the control workers benefits and conditions in the hands of business owners.... cause after all we all know that they've proven themselves to have the interest of their employees in mind in the past....

theres nothing quite like putting the control workers benefits and conditions in the hands of business owners.... cause after all we all know that they've proven themselves to have the interest of their employees in mind in the past....

If your country doesn't have laws to protect this from happening already, I feel bad for it.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

OOC: Well, it does look like this is going to pass. I really hope this isn't the way the game goes, with those in possession of TGing scripts in control of the UN, but perhaps it will be given it simply gives them such an advantage.

I really hope this isn't the way the game goes, with those in possession of TGing scripts in control of the UN
OOC: So we can use scripts now? That'll certainly make things easier.

OOC: So we can use scripts now? That'll certainly make things easier.

OOC: Brings up an interesting concern, anyway we can see a registry of who voted and their votes, like a roll call vote, kind of thing?

OOC: Brings up an interesting concern, anyway we can see a registry of who voted and their votes, like a roll call vote, kind of thing?
No, I think you're getting confused. You can already see delegate votes (http://www.nationstates.net/79118/page=UN_delegate_votes); I know of no method to determine member votes. What I was talking about is a program that sends telegrams automatically: given the biggest stumbling block to getting a proposal to quorum is the boredom/length of doing a manual campaign, having a program do it for you is certainly going to make it easier to get things to quorum (especially those whose interests lie not in the quality of drafting but simply getting stuff to quorum for the sake of it).

No, I think you're getting confused. You can already see delegate votes (http://www.nationstates.net/79118/page=UN_delegate_votes); I know of no method to determine member votes. What I was talking about is a program that sends telegrams automatically: given the biggest stumbling block to getting a proposal to quorum is the boredom/length of doing a manual campaign, having a program do it for you is certainly going to make it easier to get things to quorum (especially those whose interests lie not in the quality of drafting but simply getting stuff to quorum for the sake of it).

OOC: gotcha, I'm sorry.

What I was talking about is a program that sends telegrams automatically...OOC: Such a script would be illegal under the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5812823&postcount=59), Even if the script is used to just strip out delegate "addresses", I would wonder if it doesn't violate rule 6 of the script rules.

The right to form unions is an elementary workers right. It gives workers job protection and holds bosses, who don't work and merely profit off the labour of workers, accountable. Unions often ensure decent wages, regular wage increases , benefits, pensions and job security that would general not be ensured otherwise. I say with strong conviction that those who oppose the right to unionize have outright contemp for the working class.

I think this is just a load of bull...

It gives the right to form unions but it doesn't force anyone to form a union so who ever wrote it is not concerened about socialist. They are capitalist protectors trying to mask their agenda and make people vote like they want without understanding what they really want with the repeal.

The thing I think that the delegates to this convention who have stated that (whiny high-pitched voice) "Unions are a basic workers rights....we must have them...." is that WE F***ING UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem here is that, under the current propsal, unions, which UN Proposal #149 fails to define, will become whatever they want and will run rampant!!!! The companies that control, (coughs) I mean assist, the Egdak government will fall, leaving a ruined economy here and in many other places!!!

So to the whiners who voted no for the above reason: :upyours:

Emperor Jolly Wally the Penguin

The right to form unions is an elementary workers right. It gives workers job protection and holds bosses, who don't work and merely profit off the labour of workers, accountable. Unions often ensure decent wages, regular wage increases , benefits, pensions and job security that would general not be ensured otherwise. I say with strong conviction that those who oppose the right to unionize have outright contemp for the working class.

The video screen above the floor roars to life the image on it is Josiah Barttlet the leader of the USP who is quite redfaced'

I beg you to come to my capital Phildelpha and say that to my face...bring guards... lots of them! I come from the working class, not some stick up my ass finishing school ambassador, and anyone who says I have anything but a respect and love for the working class is I feel with strong conviction simply idiotically wrong!

I have worked for, and passed, more laws in my country protecting my workers then any other in my position before, we've created jobs at a rate that is twice that of my predecessors. Any proposal my legislature puts on my desk making the world better for my workers has been signed and enacted before the ink dried.

We've passed mandates on safety, wages, profit sharing, health and retirement benefits, family leave, does any of this sound familiar to you? We've even passed legislation protecting the workers from the unions, making sure the unions we have focus on making the world better for their workers and not themselves. I would suggest that most of the things you think this candyass resolution is going to take away from you are already BINDING LAW in the USoP. We don't need the UN to help us protect our workers... we're doing it already. We don't need the UN to force us to take care of our workers we've done that since the second I took the oath.

Do we believe that the rest of this world should feel and treat their workers the same, or course yes, but if you read more than just the title of the original resolution you may find it leaves loopholes that any of your corporate bosses can drive a truck through. So the legislation you are supporting doesn't entirely fit ambassador. If it is repealed and a good piece is proposed I'll have our delegation support it.

Also, let's not kid the people of the world, while the majority of labor unions are good and just, there are more than a fair share that have much bigger aspirations then protecting their members, unions world wide have been linked to corruption, and electioneering, unions that have long histories in strong-arming, double dealing, and a laundry list of offenses that shed them in quite a different light than the fairy tale gallant knights that you and other have painted them.

So cut the rhetoric, and either vote or don't vote, but please know a little about the nations you paint with the brush you've decided to paint with.

'the screen cuts out'

The NationStates Region casts her 108 Votes AGAINST this Repeal.

We do not believe that the argument is sufficient to Repeal this Resolution supported by 58% of the Voters in May of 2006.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

Love Conquers Fear

The West Pacific casts 256 votes AGAINST.

Posted for Delegate TAO.

The United Nations (the region) has cast its 20 votes AGAINST this repeal.

Drew Domz
Presiding Jevian UN Representative
Delegate of the United Nations

Well, look on the bright side: if this does pass, we can find out if we can repeal Repeals. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not keen on having this sack full of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations sitting on the statute book forever, even if repealing it doesn't bring back the original motion.

Well, look on the bright side: if this does pass, we can find out if we can repeal Repeals.

OOC: I think that'd royally screw something up. The game would crash, and without NationStates, the apocalypse would come early.

Well, look on the bright side: if this does pass, we can find out if we can repeal Repeals.

OOC: I can tell you right now it's not possible, the repeal link isn't even available.

Actually someone has tried to repeal a repeal before. I posted said repeal repeal in the silly proposals thread. So it is possible, just not likely.

Actually someone has tried to repeal a repeal before. I posted said repeal repeal in the silly proposals thread. So it is possible, just not likely.

OOC: Not legally.

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

" Hellao!! This proposal is very nice!! On behalf of the Gilabadian government, we support this proposal. Trade unions are the death of a civilised economy. They defy the natural laws of economics. Supply and demand are what dictate the wages of the workers not by what they think is fair. If they don't like the wages, then they can find another job. I will admit that the intent of trade unions is in good faith, however it is simply unrealistic. The idea that everyone needs their share of money is a Socialist Utopian concept. Karl Marx specificaly states that communism only works with "central planning"; meaning that the government is in control of all operations within the state. For example, in France by Louis Phillipe in 1848, one policy implemented was the "National Workshops", which was basicaly welfare. The government set up industries in which the government would pay the workers even if they didn't work. The result was the bankrupsy of the government and inflated taxes. So in conclusion, if the company or corporation had the money to pay workers, it would. If for some reason the CEO was a jerk and had TRULY unfair policies, then all of the workers would resign and find another job. If no one was working for that CEO then he would in turn go out of buisiness, so he has an obligation to treat his workers fairly. A company has its own responsibility to pay its workers accordingly. If they do a lousy job or if they dont meet standards then they don't get paid as much. Higher pay is a reward not a right. There is no need tor raise hell and protest for better wages. Thus unions should be abolished."

-Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad

OOC: Not legally.

Ah. Well I don't remember what it looked like so that could be true.

The White Homeland is staunchly and uncomprimisingly against this piece of legislation. Repealing the right to form unions will leave the working class un-protected and un-represented, breaking the very defenitions of democracy.

More importantly is how this bill will harm the White underclass which already is suffering from foreign out-sourcing. Work has been done to see justice for many communities but none what-so-ever has been done for the White community and I see now as a chance to prevent an onslaught against the democratic rights of those peoples.

Destruction of unions is aid to globalization, outsourcing, and exploitation and cannot be allowed to happen.

President of the Armed Democratic Republic of the White Homeland,
--Daikun Tarkin

The thing I think that the delegates to this convention who have stated that (whiny high-pitched voice) "Unions are a basic workers rights....we must have them...." is that WE F***ING UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem here is that, under the current propsal, unions, which UN Proposal #149 fails to define, will become whatever they want and will run rampant!!!! The companies that control, (coughs) I mean assist, the Egdak government will fall, leaving a ruined economy here and in many other places!!!

So to the whiners who voted no for the above reason: :upyours:

Emperor Jolly Wally the Penguin

This Assembly welcomes the Egdak representative to the UN and will kindly thank him to keep his jolly fingers jolly well to himself when attempting to make a point that wishes to be considered as anything but rubbish.

WE F***ING UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The problem here is that,

He didn't use all notes of exclamation he could have, did he?

From representative Justin D. Cole, of Zintharia,

If I may quote the White Homeland,

The White Homeland is staunchly and uncomprimisingly against this piece of legislation. Repealing the right to form unions will leave the working class un-protected and un-represented, breaking the very defenitions of democracy.

More importantly is how this bill will harm the White underclass which already is suffering from foreign out-sourcing. Work has been done to see justice for many communities but none what-so-ever has been done for the White community and I see now as a chance to prevent an onslaught against the democratic rights of those peoples.

Destruction of unions is aid to globalization, outsourcing, and exploitation and cannot be allowed to happen.

President of the Armed Democratic Republic of the White Homeland,
--Daikun Tarkin

I'm positive that it has been stated before, but if we keep the resolution in place, me and my other fine socialists will have our governments imploded. If you want to increase the rights of the underclass, simply allow them to join in the leadership of your country.

I'm positive that it has been stated before, but if we keep the resolution in place, me and my other fine socialists will have our governments imploded.
And I'm positive that it has been shown that no such thing has happened or will happen. A socialist state that doesn't involve unionisation in some manner isn't a socialist state.

Altanar's Deputy Ambassador, Ikir Askanabath, ran briskly back into the GA and grabbed the microphone at Altanar's desk

"We're changing our minds....we're voting against this repeal. Hopefully we won't get fired for it."

"What exactly do you think you're doing, Ikir?" Markus Paulanus asked him, an eyebrow raised.

"Staging a revolt. Just a little one, though," Ikir grinned.

It seems to have passified:

Votes For: 6,233
Votes Against: 4,670

Not too bothered, really. Nevertheless, we enjoyed exploiting those loopholes...

That's freaking awesome. Yeah, the unions made lives of a lot of people so much better. sadly, though globalisation is unstopable for the the world's greatest country to remain just that. So, for industries like the automotive and textile industries the guranteed wages and benefits nearly killed or did kill some of the 20th century giant american players. I mean how are we suppossed to put out a comprable product with a competitive price when they just don't take that good of care of their employees? I salute the UAW for stepping down. You may have just saved GM

If your country doesn't have laws to protect this from happening already, I feel bad for it.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi
the point is to put the rights in the hands of the many not the few...

repealing the rights of workers to form unions repeals the rights of the people to protect themselves and takes away their power....

the point is to put the rights in the hands of the many not the few...

repealing the rights of workers to form unions repeals the rights of the people to protect themselves and takes away their power....

Not if you as a goverment pass a law in your own country. Stop relying on the UN to do your work for you.

From representative Justin D. Cole, of Zintharia,

If you want to increase the rights of the underclass, simply allow them to join in the leadership of your country.

They do, we are an Authoritarian Democracy which works towards the popular interest of our peoples and does all possible to provide for the common security of our nation.

It's hard enough having to dodge those who'd love nothing more than to raid me and label me a "nazi". I have stood them down and I'm shocked at the slander and propaganda your spreading.

It seems to have passified:

Votes For: 6,233
Votes Against: 4,670

Another triumph for Goatssville!

Not if you as a goverment pass a law in your own country. Stop relying on the UN to do your work for you.
It's not their workers that they're worried for.