NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, that's a bit of a bummer. Pity I didn't have time to come here earlier to attack this vile repeal.

I've rewritten the resolution to something more clear and to the point. It's in the queue. This time, I'm going for serious protection of workers.

Firstly, as a longtime forum regular, I don't need to tell you that it's usually a good idea to post a draft before anything is submitted.

Secondly, your new proposal is not a vast improvement over the first. In fact, it's worse. Now it doesn't have any exceptions to the right to strike. As you'll recall, the problem with your resolution was that it contained too few exceptions, not too many.

Union Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: 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,

REALISING that previous UN legislation might not have been optimal,

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 cooperate nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; going on strike can not be a legal reason to fire a worker,

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

4. 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,

5. 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.

Approvals: 2 (Veltham, Icycomb)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 106 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jul 5 2007

What the...

The representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny was being kind in saying the new version is worse. It's awful!

It's a shame the representative of Grout Goodie -- or whatever that nation's called -- "didn't have the time" to read over objections to the original piece of dewback dung.

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

Well, that's a bit of a bummer. Pity I didn't have time to come here earlier to attack this vile repeal.

I've rewritten the resolution to something more clear and to the point. It's in the queue. This time, I'm going for serious protection of workers.
What I love is that your replacement is even more damaging to workers' rights, because it provides an incentive for governments to strip away their citizenship (as it only extends a right of unionisation to citizens, not 'nationals' or 'persons'). I can think of a number of nations who'd be only too happy to oblige with this gift-wrapped invitation for oppression.

Furthermore, you are hubris personified. I suppose everyone else in the UN forum, who assisted with drafting your previous resolutions, is now just too fucking stupid to help you draft a replacement? You didn't even consult your region. Shameful.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

Wow.

Where to start... it's all so bad...

I see you were crafty enough not to include a definition of who can be in a union or for that matter what a union exact is, so the concern of corporate leaders unionizing is still a valid one.

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 cooperate nationally and internationally,

You want to make a labor union an INTERNATIONAL ENTITY? I don't know what to say to that.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; going on strike can not be a legal reason to fire a worker,

You want to allow all unions no matter what they do to strike at any time? So my nations police, fire, ambulance, air - rail - and space traffic controllers, to be able to strike. At any time. No matter what the consequence. Does this peice of trash also say that soldiers can strike?

You want to make a labor union an INTERNATIONAL ENTITY? I don't know what to say to that.
No, he wants unions to be able to cooperate with other national unions. I don't see anything wrong with that.
You want to allow all unions no matter what they do to strike at any time? So my nations police, fire, ambulance, air - rail - and space traffic controllers, to be able to strike. At any time. No matter what the consequence. Does this peice of trash also say that soldiers can strike?
If they're citizens, yes.

No, he wants unions to be able to cooperate with other national unions. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Not the way I read it, almost sound like this would want unions to be able to cross national boarders.

If they're citizens, yes.

No, sorry not if their job is directly linked to public safety. That flies dead in the face of our Union Laws. I'm not about to have the police in my communities go on strike leaving innocent people exposed because the head of the union doesn't get a long with management.

OOC _

Playing wih semantics...

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 cooperate nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike;

Re clause #1: So if not every citizen in the nation wants to form or join Unions then the others' "right" to do so need not be recognised....
Re clause #2: So a strike only has to be recognised as legal if it includes "all workers in all UN member nations "...

;)

Greetings, comrade!

What I love is that your replacement is even more damaging to workers' rights, because it provides an incentive for governments to strip away their citizenship (as it only extends a right of unionisation to citizens, not 'nationals' or 'persons'). I can think of a number of nations who'd be only too happy to oblige with this gift-wrapped invitation for oppression.

Hm, that would mean we'd need a resolution to automatically give citizenship to anyone who applies or is born. That would be interesting. My people could then become citizens in your nation, and start unions!

Furthermore, you are hubris personified. I suppose everyone else in the UN forum, who assisted with drafting your previous resolutions, is now just too fucking stupid to help you draft a replacement? You didn't even consult your region. Shameful.

Hey, why wait for my region to approve when I've got a good idea? I mean, at least this proposal is clear. You may disagree with it, or hate me, or stamp your feet, but it's clear in its intentions.

It's sad when a respected member of this Assembly succumbs to childish pique rather than trying to pass sensible legislation. This proposal is an abomination. It simply gives every worker in every NSUN nation the right to walk off the job anytime they want, and the employer is powerless to fire them. The proposal takes no account whatever of the welfare of the general populace. As long as the precious union members can strike anytime they want to, for any reason good or bad, that's all the author seems to want.

We had a disagreement with the author over one clause in his otherwise excellent original resolution, but we argued here and elsewhere against its repeal. We will argue even longer and harder against this ridiculous, patently dangerous piece of trash.

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

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I am a communist and I hate it. Especially the part about requiring citizens to only be able to form unions. Quod is right as much as I hate to admit it...and Zyrwick must stand opposed and I will even argue against this proposal in my region if necessary.

We right now are in the planning stages of a replacement, but rather than organizing unions rather we are trying to figure out a way to standardize shifts and breaks. I think that if we can work within the Individual Working Freedoms and Fair Wage Act we can still get what we want. If not...there must be something better than this "proposal" which would open the doors for "back door oppression". I can see the capitalists lining up right now to find 3rd world slaves--"Guest Workers" is the politically correct term I believe, should their own citizens unionize under this disaster.

You know, I've been a staunch supporter of union resolutions in the past, due in part to my being a member of a union. However, as this resolution offers absolutely no exemptions for jobs which are vital for the safety of a nation. I find I have no choice but to oppose this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Our delegation has been absent from this body for some time, and we regret that our return to active debates coincides with this legislative filth.

The right of workers to join unions should be enshrined in international law, but not at the expense of business owners or the economic community at large. It is idealistic, poorly concieved reactionism like this that threatens the stability of healthy societies by building artificial boundaries between "workers" and "everyone else," and the horrendous restrictions proposed in this work serve only to limit the ability of well-meaning governments to serve the people and prevent harm to the economy and society at large.

We support the work of labour rights in due course, but this monstrous construct serves only to damage the very liberties in it's cyclopic scope.

Van Turinh Lath
His Excellency the Ambassador of Allech-Atreus

It simply gives every worker in every NSUN nation the right to walk off the job anytime they want, and the employer is powerless to fire them.

They aren't, however, required to pay them, nor are the barred from hiring workers to take their place. And it only applies to nations that require a reason for firing.

I'm not sure how much the military issue applies, however. Presumably, the nation would require prospective soldiers, etc. to waive their right to strike, which this resolution allows (or, at least, doesn't bar).

That said, we are still not comfortable supporting this resolution, as the flaws pointed out by other members are only solved by exploiting perhaps dubious loopholes, and we are not comfortable relying on loopholes in order to make legislation work for us.

We urge the delegation from Groot Gouda to allow this forum to assist in drafting a resolution that will be acceptable to most members from both a practical and (if possible) ideological standpoint.

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

This proposal is a piece of trash rushed to the table, and it shows all the signs of it too. I am certain there are many groups and individuals out there who were working on good proposals and we get this?

I'll be damned if I recommend to my Delegate to support this thing to get anywhere near quorum.

~S

I'm fairly sure that pointless dogpiling won't be very conducive towards getting a good resolution out of this...of course, neither will an unyielding proposer.

M.K.P.
&c.

Oh, this is beautiful! Bravo! Bravo! Please, hurry up and pass this. It'll utterly destroy industry in UN nations, and we'll gladly step in with our reasonable prices.

And I can't wait for the first war... seeing soldiers on strike while tanks roll through the capital. I love it!



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

It simply gives every worker in every NSUN nation the right to walk off the job anytime they want, and the employer is powerless to fire them.

Current UN legislation allows every employer to fire workers at random anytime they want. The employee is powerless.

Why do people find this more acceptable? It doesn't help production per worker (au contraire), it's bad for job satisfaction, it's a disaster for an economy.

We urge the delegation from Groot Gouda to allow this forum to assist in drafting a resolution that will be acceptable to most members from both a practical and (if possible) ideological standpoint.

It doesn't require support from most members, just from a majority of voters. Compromising everything down to nothing may be a great pastime here, but pointless from an ideological point of view.

Although I do have an alternative up my sleeve, of course. But that's not as fantastic as this one.

I assure you, this one is not fantastic Groot.

Current UN legislation allows every employer to fire workers at random anytime they want. The employee is powerless.

Why do people find this more acceptable? It doesn't help production per worker (au contraire), it's bad for job satisfaction, it's a disaster for an economy.

The representative of Groot Gouda knows perfectly well that we would support a reasonable proposal guaranteeing the right to unionize and to strike, with certain specific exceptions to that right when the strike would endanger the health or welfare of the public. Instead, he throws out this dangerous thing and then tries to characterize reasonable opposition as anti-labor.

This proposal is a slap in the face to those of us who would have been glad to work with him on trying to draft sound legislation on the matter.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I assure you, this one is not fantastic Groot.Oh I dunno, it's got people talking, which is a good thing.

Could be improved though...oh wait, what's that I see on the horizon? ;)

Current UN legislation allows every employer to fire workers at random anytime they want. The employee is powerless.

Why do people find this more acceptable? It doesn't help production per worker (au contraire), it's bad for job satisfaction, it's a disaster for an economy.

Of course it does; because there isn't any UN law on the subject of labor unions. What did you think was going to happen when your old resolution was repealed? But, we have already seen at least three replacements submitted, and at least one of them isn't complete garbage, so there's hope yet for workers rights.

We find that we cannot support this piece of absolute garbage. We cannot allow our soldiers to strike. That is not a right afforded to them, and never will be. Furthermore, this resolution seems to afford the right to strike to every single employed person in a UN country.

I'm sorry, but that ain't gonna fly. There has to be exceptions.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
is a big Devil's Advocate
for corporations

I'm placing my bets on the Labour Unions Act currently being discussed in this forum. It is straightforward and fairly balanced.

Current UN legislation allows every employer to fire workers at random anytime they want. The employee is powerless.

Why do people find this more acceptable? It doesn't help production per worker (au contraire), it's bad for job satisfaction, it's a disaster for an economy.

Actually, it might help certain economies, as employers are more reluctant to employ people if they know they cannot fire them at their own discretion. Since randomness is not a viable business concept, I strongly doubt that workers would be randomly fired even if it was legal (witch it currently is, save for national legalisation).

In conclusion, a dose of concentrated employment flexibility, as I like to call the concept, may help kick-start an economy under certain circumstances.

Although I do have an alternative up my sleeve, of course. But that's not as fantastic as this one.

Yes, it's much better to draw attention to yourself with childish trash like this. Well done.

The representative from Ausserland referred to you as a respected member of this assembly. Reading this poor excuse for a proposal, I can't imagine how you ever earned such a characterization.

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

Hm, that would mean we'd need a resolution to automatically give citizenship to anyone who applies or is born. That would be interesting. My people could then become citizens in your nation, and start unions!
No, it'd mean we'd have to have a proposal written by someone who knew the faintest thing about labour law, which is clearly not you. We have plenty of non-citizens working in Quintessence of Dust: you acquire citizenship at the age of 18, but many 16-17 year olds work towards apprenticeships or vocational courses (not to mention that many under the age of 18 work part-time anyway: not everyone has a rich daddy); equally, although it is relatively easy to immigrate and acquire citizenship, it is easier still to acquire a short term work permit. Why should young people and immigrants not be able to unionise? I'd say they were two groups most in need of the protection unions offer, because they're the most likely to be exploited by employers.
Hey, why wait for my region to approve when I've got a good idea?
No reason. But I was talking about when you have a monumentally stupid idea.
I mean, at least this proposal is clear. You may disagree with it, or hate me, or stamp your feet, but it's clear in its intentions.
So? A proposal saying 'all unions are illegal with no exceptions' would be clear in its intentions: are you suggesting that would be a redeeming feature? If so, it's a meaningless one; if not, then retract your idiocy.

-- George Madison

Yes, it's much better to draw attention to yourself with childish trash like this. Well done.

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me, dude... Hug?

Yes, it's much better to draw attention to yourself with childish trash like this. Well done.

The representative from Ausserland referred to you as a respected member of this assembly. Reading this poor excuse for a proposal, I can't imagine how you ever earned such a characterization.Forgive me, but I'm only curious: would the Vandalorian representative support any sort of international protection for labor unions?

The representative from Ausserland referred to you as a respected member of this assembly. Reading this poor excuse for a proposal, I can't imagine how you ever earned such a characterization.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UNPeople change, and in this case it's not for the better.

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me, dude... Hug?

You know, after calling her a "dude" I don't think that's such a good idea.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me, dude... Hug?

"Dude"? Keep your paws off of me!

Forgive me, but I'm only curious: would the Vandalorian representative support any sort of international protection for labor unions?

Your apology is unnecessary. Being new to this position, I checked with the government back on New Vandalia to answer this question. The reply came from Vandalore Boba Fett himself. Given his experience with the former Bounty Hunters Guild, he personally deplores unions. He says support from New Vandalia for any sort of international protection for labor unions would be extremely unlikely.

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

Given his experience with the former Bounty Hunters GuildYou know, this has me thinking...

Perhaps we should scrap the whole "union" idea, and bring back guilds. I always rather liked them.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Apparently they were a mess. But then, my father shattered the Bounty Hunters Guild before I was born, so I'm just going on hearsay.

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

You know, after calling her a "dude" I don't think that's such a good idea.

Didn't we have some kind of equality of the sexes resolution in place? In that case I can call anyone dude, female or otherwise.

It doesn't require support from most members, just from a majority of voters. Compromising everything down to nothing may be a great pastime here, but pointless from an ideological point of view.

The fact that you refuse to look at this issue from anything other than an ideological point of view is exactly why your proposal will not go anywhere.

M.K.P.
&c.

As there are better proposals out there than this one, and as this one is dangerously simplistic in its wording, we would have no choice but to stand in opposition.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

The fact that you refuse to look at this issue from anything other than an ideological point of view is exactly why your proposal will not go anywhere.

You're a traitor to the workers, and the revolutionairy classes will overthrow your capitalist regime and fart in the general direction of your CEOs.

You're a traitor to the government, and the capitalist regime will overtax your revolutionary class and laugh in the general direction of your commie leaders.

For better or worse, that's a more accurate description of the situation in many nations. Personally, I'd be afraid to live in either of those societies. Which is why they invented compromise. Look it up, it'll help you write better proposals.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

You're the delegate for the IDU region now; do you not realize that criticizing the work of your regionmates carries the pain of death?

~Cdr. Chiang