NationStates Jolt Archive


Submitted: Labor Unions Act

Rubina
03-07-2007, 08:33
Below is the proposal as resubmitted. It can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labor%20relations) for endorsement purposes. This has been a collaborative effort and the group would like to thank everyone who has participated in its development, including those making comments in this thread.

UN Labor Relations Act
Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant

Description: Believing that the ability to form and join labor unions is often an important factor in assuring proper compensation and adequate working conditions;

Recognizing that industrial actions are important -- sometimes the only -- means available for workers to successfully influence management decisions,

But also believing that the welfare of the general public must be of paramount concern in weighing the right of workers to engage in such actions,

The United Nations;

1. RESOLVES that all UN member states must recognize and ensure the fundamental right of everyone to form or join unions of their choice for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those unions to establish and join federations and confederations of labor organizations, both nationally and internationally.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to engage in strikes and other industrial actions, including, but not limited to, work slowdowns, overtime refusal, work-to-rule and general strikes, provided that those actions do not cause physical harm to persons or property;
a. Employers are not required to pay wages of workers while they are on strike.
b. Workers may not be terminated from employment for participating in a legally authorized strike or industrial action.

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes or other industrial actions which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

4. RESERVES to the respective member nations the right to determine the extent to which the provisions of this resolution shall apply to:
a. Members of the armed forces,
b. Law enforcement personnel,c. Providers of emergency services, and,
c. Government employees providing essential public services.

5. MANDATES that labor disputes involving workers lacking the right to strike under articles 3.b. and 4 of this resolution be settled through binding arbitration administered by an independent and unbiased third party.

6. DECLARES that national governments may require unions to supply fair notice to employers and relevant government agencies in advance of industrial action.

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organize their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs.

8. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.

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

Leetha Talone
Rubinan Ambassador to the UN
Worldwide Ministries
03-07-2007, 08:39
I am not an expert that can simply analyze it first but i support this proposal because it looks promising and it supports human rights
Hirota
03-07-2007, 08:41
I'm maybe biased, but I like it.
Temurdia
03-07-2007, 10:13
I really like this proposal; it seems very professional.

I'm maybe biased, but I like it.

What bias are you referring to?
Hirota
03-07-2007, 10:24
What bias are you referring to?This one ;)
This proposal is a collaborative effort including contributions from Ardchoille, Ausserland, and Hirota among others.
Temurdia
03-07-2007, 10:57
This one ;)

Ah, know I understand nothing of your point! Would you care to elaborate?
Philimbesi
03-07-2007, 12:18
Ah, know I understand nothing of your point! Would you care to elaborate?

He wrote part of it.
Philimbesi
03-07-2007, 12:21
I rise to support this resolution. It is the clear and most succinct proposal concerning unions we've seen so far. Wonderful work.


Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi
Hirota
03-07-2007, 12:21
If I recall, someone wrote an initial draft, I made suggestions. It went a lot further after that without me.

Anyhow, aside from my involvement, does anyone have comments?
Temurdia
03-07-2007, 12:44
I'm maybe biased, but I like it.

I see what you mean; I misread the quoted post as "It may be biased". No wonder it made no sense to me.

About the proposal, I cannot see any way it could possible be changed without either removing central issues or adding redundant ones. I suggest proposing it to the UN as it is.
Groot Gouda
03-07-2007, 12:49
clause 2b: I have my doubts about "legally authorized". It makes it sound as if there are still illegal strikes with this resolution, which can't be if you read clause 2 bearing clause 3 in mind.

clause 4: am I misreading it if I think it reads "if you're in any of these mentioned sectors, tough luck" ? If so, my Govermnent Workers Union, Millitairy Union and several others are very disappointed. Finding a compromise to keep people happy, fine, but the way it's phrased now limits nations who want to go further than this resolution.

clause 6: what's a fair notice then? an hour? It could be used to sabotage industrial action by malevolent regimes, and it really doesn't add anything. I haven't heard this being used as an argument in previous discussions. Can be removed.

If my own extreme version doesn't make it in one go, I'll support this one.
Cookesland
03-07-2007, 13:53
Very nice, it certainly gets my endorsement.

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland
Hirota
03-07-2007, 13:56
clause 2b: I have my doubts about "legally authorized". It makes it sound as if there are still illegal strikes with this resolution, which can't be if you read clause 2 bearing clause 3 in mind.If you do that, I can imagine a few examples of strikes which are not "legal." For example, Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union or which have not had the benefit of previous mediation or arbitration procedures.clause 4: am I misreading it if I think it reads "if you're in any of these mentioned sectors, tough luck" ? If so, my Govermnent Workers Union, Millitairy Union and several others are very disappointed. Finding a compromise to keep people happy, fine, but the way it's phrased now limits nations who want to go further than this resolution.The key part is the end of 4. "...shall be determined by national laws or regulations." Basically those listed under 4 are subject to national legislation. If you want to pass legislation which gives them rights, that's fine. Otherwise there is a strong argument out there that these areas have to be treated differently because of the critical nature of their work.clause 6: what's a fair notice then? an hour? It could be used to sabotage industrial action by malevolent regimes, and it really doesn't add anything. I haven't heard this being used as an argument in previous discussions. Can be removed.I suspect you are reading it the wrong way round.
Groot Gouda
03-07-2007, 14:31
If you do that, I can imagine a few examples of strikes which are not "legal." For example, Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union or which have not had the benefit of previous mediation or arbitration procedures.

Anybody can form a union, so those striking without union support are plain stupid. Those wo are not allowed to strike are already described, so it's a bit double to also put it here.

The key part is the end of 4. "...shall be determined by national laws or regulations." Basically those listed under 4 are subject to national legislation. If you want to pass legislation which gives them rights, that's fine. Otherwise there is a strong argument out there that these areas have to be treated differently because of the critical nature of their work.

Ok, fair enough. Those who want to ignore this should make everybody government employee and declare their work essential then?

I suspect you are reading it the wrong way round.

I tried ".noitca lairtsudni fo ecnavda ni seicnega tnemnrevog tnaveler dna sreyolpme ot eciton riaf ylppus ot snoinu eriuqer yam stnemnrevog lanoitan taht SERALCED" but that didn't clear it up. It's still an unnecessary addition.
Flibbleites
03-07-2007, 14:52
Now here's a union proposal I can get behind, approved.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Zyrwick
03-07-2007, 15:33
I have been ordered by the Politburo of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick to fully support this proposal and see that it is enacted.

In short Zyrwick loves it.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.
Allech-Atreus
03-07-2007, 15:57
Eh, we like.
Akimonad
03-07-2007, 15:58
As much as I'd like to support this, I'm too friendly with corporations who want this sort of thing abolished.

I haven't come to a decision yet, which is good, because this has not yet been queued. That gives me time to think. Or accept bribes.

Hmm.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Quintessence of Dust
03-07-2007, 16:48
Ok, fair enough. Those who want to ignore this should make everybody government employee and declare their work essential then?
I'd think there'd be a pretty high correlation between 'eagerness to ignore this proposal' and 'antipathy to complete nationalisation'. Surely it'll be the most capitalist nations who'll be disgruntled at this proposal...precisely those nations least likely to expand their public sector on a whim. That phrase 'childish pique': it really was fitting.

Tentative support, but a suggestion: this proposal doesn't have a preamble. Could its sponsor/co-author/supporters offer up a few arguments, in this thread, to justify its provisions (particularly those that are new to UN unions legislation)?

-- Goerge Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust
Cobdenia
03-07-2007, 17:50
I would like to see the right of government to suspend union activity during times of war and national emergency, but otherwise this is good
New Vandalia
03-07-2007, 17:51
I would like to see the right of government to suspend union activity during times of war and national emergency, but otherwise this is good

This would be a critical inclusion for New Vandalia. Without it, we're going to go against the proposal.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
Rubina
03-07-2007, 18:04
... a suggestion: this proposal doesn't have a preamble. Could its sponsor/co-author/supporters offer up a few arguments, in this thread, to justify its provisionsYou mean, besides We hold these truths to be self-evident...? :)

We'll even put it in preamble form. Please note, we are speaking primarily for ourselves and urge others to contribute as they see fit....

BELIEVING the ability to organize and address work-place issues and conditions is a basic right of all workers;

NOTING that right gives workers a voice in their labor and its conditions;

OBSERVING such a right transcends occupations and is beneficial to workers throughout the world;

CONSIDERS such protection worthy of enshrinement in international law;

COGNIZANT that the right itself is best exercised at the national level with the formation of unions that reflect local needs and local worker control;

ACKNOWLEDGING the benefits to the union and its individual members of international cooperation and exchange between labor organizations;

MAINTAINING that labor unions have a role in all economic systems, serve to improve working conditions for the individual worker and ultimately, by working with industry, increase production;

AWARE that labor organizations operate within the context of their nation’s laws and that there are well-founded limits to collective actions;

ASSERTING that such limits be justifiable and minimized to the greatest extent possible so as to restrict workers’ union rights as little as possible;


I would like to see the right of government to suspend union activity during times of war and national emergency, but otherwise this is goodAlthough not specifically delineated, we believe such situations would fall under section 3.b.
3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:

b. Strikes which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel.Labor actions during (real) war or (real) national emergencies would most certainly endanger the public welfare. I qualify it, because there are certainly "wars" that do not affect the operations of the nation sufficiently to negate the rights of its people, and we assume you meant a conflagration such as the Great War of mythical Earth.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Ausserland
03-07-2007, 18:07
I would like to see the right of government to suspend union activity during times of war and national emergency, but otherwise this is good

We believe that the distinguished representative's concern about national emergency is amply covered by Section 3b of the proposal. We'd also think that Section 3b would allow national governments to prohibit strikes in time of war on a case-by-case basis. Job actions in essential war production or transportation facilities, for example, would hamper the nation's ability to successfully prosecute the war, and thus endanger the welfare of its populace.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
Schwarzchild
03-07-2007, 18:14
I have asked my delegate to approve this for Quorum.

~S
Temurdia
03-07-2007, 19:56
For the sake of semantics, should one not add "this" as indicated?

NOTING that this right gives workers a voice in their labour and its conditions;

Also, if only to make me glad, I'd rather prefer British spelling of "labour" ;)


ACKNOWLEDGING the benefits to the unions and their individual members of international cooperation and exchange between labour organizations;

... just to make it more general.


EDIT:
I have asked my delegate to approve this for Quorum.


I hope this does not mean my suggestions are too late?
Rudius
03-07-2007, 20:27
Unions are the back bone of a healthy economy and of a just society. I'm all for it. The Free land of Rudius
Rubina
03-07-2007, 21:05
For the sake of semantics, should one not add "this" as indicated? -snip-Thank you for your comments. However, nothing in the statement to which you are responding appears in the proposal as submitted, and once submitted no changes can be made.

Also, if only to make me glad, I'd rather prefer British spelling of "labour" ;)Please don't. We note the delegate's wink, but preference for one mythical language over another is not worth this body's time or energy.

--L.T.
Cobdenia
03-07-2007, 22:47
We believe that the distinguished representative's concern about national emergency is amply covered by Section 3b of the proposal. We'd also think that Section 3b would allow national governments to prohibit strikes in time of war on a case-by-case basis. Job actions in essential war production or transportation facilities, for example, would hamper the nation's ability to successfully prosecute the war, and thus endanger the welfare of its populace.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

One could argue that, and as such my objection is not a major one, nor one that would put me off voting for the resolution in question. I just feel that explicitedly stating the right to suspend union activity in such circumstances would be best explicitly enshrined in the proposal, due to fact that, as it stands there is an element of interpretation of the law required which may hamper the suspension of the rights of union in wartime.

Also, I feel the term "trades unions" would be better used the "labo(u)r unions", for fears of general argument.
Schwarzchild
04-07-2007, 00:26
Trade-

3 a : the business or work in which one engages regularly : OCCUPATION b : an occupation requiring manual or mechanical skill : CRAFT c : the persons engaged in an occupation, business, or industry.

3b seems to be the operative definition according to Merriam Webster

Labor-

4 a : an economic group comprising those who do manual labor or work for wages b (1) : workers employed in an establishment (2) : workers available for employment c : the organizations or officials representing groups of workers

4c is the operative definition here.

So Labor Unions seems the correct definition for unions representing all phases of organized labor. A Trade Union is a specific type of labor union.

<shrug> YMMV.
Cobdenia
04-07-2007, 00:36
Which is why it's trades unions. The term means multiple unions covering multiple trades, and you have a trade union or a trades union when it's singular. And you can have trade unions.

Examples

Trades unions: The national association of toad sexers, the Cobdenion Union of Railwaymen, The Brotherhood of Merchant Mariners

Trade union: The National Association of Toad Sexers

Trades union: The Union of Miners, Steeplejacks, and Ironmongers

Trade unions: The National Association of Toad Sexers and the Guild of Brotherhood of Sexing Toads

According to "Brewers Book of Phrase and Fable" anyhoo
Manorville
04-07-2007, 00:37
i fully support this proposal
Audientes
04-07-2007, 01:31
We believe this is a fine proposal. We are concerned with the definition "industrial action", being essentially unlimited. Could willful sabotage be included as an "industrial action"? Just thinking here.
Rubina
04-07-2007, 02:47
Which is why it's trades unions.We must respectfully disagree and suggest that we are again looking at a difference in language development and usage. I would point out two things: 1) the composition of the drafting group was international in scope, and more importantly 2) the linked phrase "labor union" appears only in the title; "trade union" appears once in the text of the proposal. Is this not truly a minor concern in the context of the overall proposal?

We are concerned with the definition "industrial action", being essentially unlimited. Could willful sabotage be included as an "industrial action"? Just thinking here.Thank you for your compliment. We believe section 9 addresses your concern. 9. DECLARES that Unions must abide by national lawOnly if willful sabotage is legal in your nation would you need to be concerned about its use as a legal industrial action.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Flibbleites
04-07-2007, 02:59
Trades union, labor union, GAH! Does this arguement have to come up every time a union proposal is being drafted?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Audientes
04-07-2007, 03:23
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Sections 2 and 9. Can a nation prohibit work slow-downs? From your proposal, no, they could not, because it's stated. But where does the definition end, because it includes that troublesome "not limited to"? My own nation could prohibit sabotage, but the proposal leaves the wide wide door open for "industrial actions" that this proposal might deem legitimate. Some labour movements might use this means and claim it as an "industrial act." A national law that may prohibit sabotage might be seen as "impairing" this proposal, and thus voided. We're still trying to clarify this?
Schwarzchild
04-07-2007, 03:31
Which is why it's trades unions. The term means multiple unions covering multiple trades, and you have a trade union or a trades union when it's singular. And you can have trade unions.

Examples

Trades unions: The national association of toad sexers, the Cobdenion Union of Railwaymen, The Brotherhood of Merchant Mariners

Trade union: The National Association of Toad Sexers

Trades union: The Union of Miners, Steeplejacks, and Ironmongers

Trade unions: The National Association of Toad Sexers and the Guild of Brotherhood of Sexing Toads

According to "Brewers Book of Phrase and Fable" anyhoo

As I said, YMMV. I understand the terminology "trades unions" as we use that term in Schwarzchild. But ultimately the group that wrote this chose "labor unions." This is equally correct by root definition. I suspect we know what the authors are talking about. Right?

OOC: In the United States it is a "Labor Unions" in the UK it is "Trades Unions," they both mean exactly the same thing. A grouping of unions by labor, profession or trade group. I think the use of labor unions was a nod to the American population of the game who would not know what "Trades Unions" are intuitively.

~S
Schwarzchild
04-07-2007, 03:41
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Sections 2 and 9. Can a nation prohibit work slow-downs? From your proposal, no, they could not, because it's stated. But where does the definition end, because it includes that troublesome "not limited to"? My own nation could prohibit sabotage, but the proposal leaves the wide wide door open for "industrial actions" that this proposal might deem legitimate. Some labour movements might use this means and claim it as an "industrial act." A national law that may prohibit sabotage might be seen as "impairing" this proposal, and thus voided. We're still trying to clarify this?

No. Because in this proposal national laws may cover such matters. No resolution or proposal can cover every eventuality. But sabotage is not an "industrial action." Most nations have laws prohibiting sabotage and willful destruction of property. This resolution cannot void a criminal law prohibiting willful acts of sabotage and acts of deliberate property damage.

A work "slow-down" can be a legal industrial action, but this is dependent on the industry.

You are looking for a hard definition and the definition is subject to conditions within the nation in question.

I will ask Rubina to clarify this further at least two contributors to this proposal have experience in labor negotiations.

~S
The Most Glorious Hack
04-07-2007, 06:03
Trade unions: The National Association of Toad Sexers and the Guild of Brotherhood of Sexing ToadsI really wonder about hobbies in Cobdenia.


Anyway, let's have a moratorium on the trades/labo(u)r union debate. They both mean the same thing, so the author is free to pick one, and changing won't improve or ruin things. If anything, taking the American usage would help passage, as the majority of players are American, and thus likely to be more familiar with Labor Union.

I mean, this is even worse than the sapient/sentient wars. At least those words have different meanings...
Yelda
04-07-2007, 06:31
Could its sponsor/co-author/supporters offer up a few arguments, in this thread, to justify its provisions (particularly those that are new to UN unions legislation)?
OOC: Well it doesn't have a preamble because...I, um...just didn't write one (and isn't it a nice change of pace to see a preambleless resolution for once?). For one thing, I'm tired to death of the usual "unions=good vs. unions=bad" arguments. We've heard it all before. Minds are almost never changed by any of that. The majority of people have a preconceived notion of what they think of unions.

Those who oppose unions no matter what will oppose this regardless of what language we insert or what arguments we use to justify it.

Those who tend to support unions will support it.

Those who are sitting on the fence or who would support or oppose union legislation conditionally I'll trust to read the document and make up their own minds about how to vote.

In the end, I suppose for me it's just a matter of rights. People should be able to form unions to bargain for them collectively. This doesn't say that they must do so, just that they can. Those unions, once formed, should be able to operate freely within reasonable restraints imposed by national governments.

we're going to go against the proposal.
IC: Good. I suppose that's an indication that we got it right.

Aüþgæþ "Frickin" Spøtyiú
Used Deathstar Dealer

Which is why it's trades unions. The term means multiple unions covering multiple trades, and you have a trade union or a trades union when it's singular. And you can have trade unions.

Examples

Trades unions: The national association of toad sexers, the Cobdenion Union of Railwaymen, The Brotherhood of Merchant Mariners

Trade union: The National Association of Toad Sexers

Trades union: The Union of Miners, Steeplejacks, and Ironmongers

Trade unions: The National Association of Toad Sexers and the Guild of Brotherhood of Sexing Toads

According to "Brewers Book of Phrase and Fable" anyhoo
OOC: Oh come now! We're not going to have this discussion again are we? I used "labor unions" because that's the term I'm familiar with. Those who worked on this proposal were from the US, UK and Australia (maybe other places too, I'll have to check on that). Not once did we squabble over which term to use. :p
The Most Glorious Hack
04-07-2007, 06:59
(and isn't it a nice change of pace to see a preambleless resolution for once?)Perhaps a very short one so you aren't launching into bullet points?AFFIRMING the importance of unions, the UN hereby adopts the following:Or something like that.
New Vandalia
04-07-2007, 07:00
IC: Good. I suppose that's an indication that we got it right.

Aüþgæþ "Frickin" Spøtyiú
Used Deathstar Dealer

No, opposing the Vandalorian people is usually an indication that you've got it wrong.

And used Death Star dealer? Weren't they both destroyed?

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN
Emerilia
04-07-2007, 09:30
Choosing to ignore the disagreement with the wording of labor unions/trades unions, Emerilia finds this proposal acceptable.

James Archer
Emerilian UN Ambassador
Omigodtheykilledkenny
04-07-2007, 14:42
And used Death Star dealer? Weren't they both destroyed?And while we're at it, isn't Boba Fett dead?

I'm delighted to discover we both are wrong. ;)

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations
Ariddia
04-07-2007, 15:27
And while we're at it, isn't Boba Fett dead?


OOC: He got out of the sarlacc (long story), and was found dying (minus his hair and his ability to procreate), and subsequently nursed back to health, by Dengar's fiancée (Manaroo, or something).
Schwarzchild
05-07-2007, 17:41
bump
Rubina
05-07-2007, 20:22
I'm still trying to wrap my head around Sections 2 and 9. ... where does the definition end, because it includes that troublesome "not limited to"? As Schwarzchild correctly indicated, "No resolution or proposal can cover every eventuality. But sabotage is not an "industrial action. ... This resolution cannot void a criminal law prohibiting willful acts of sabotage and acts of deliberate property damage."

Perhaps it would be helpful to think of it this way. An industrial action is designed to highlight the value of labor. A strike (or work slow-down or “blue flu” etc.) demonstrates to management the cost of not having trained workers on the job. Destruction of property does not ever accomplish that goal and would not receive protection as a legal industrial action under this act. The non-specificity of the proposed legislation allows the law to age gracefully and to conform to different social and cultural situations.

Keep in mind that industrial actions are last-resort options for labor, occurring only after protracted negotiations have failed. Also notable is that it is an error to assume that workers would be the instigators of sabotage or destruction of property. Other groups and individuals have motive for such acts (including turning popular opinion against labor, insurance fraud, and personal vendettas) and a willingness to use an ongoing industrial action as a shield.

Hopefully this helps clarify the interplay of the two clauses.

--L.T.
Planting
05-07-2007, 21:22
I tried ".noitca lairtsudni fo ecnavda ni seicnega tnemnrevog tnaveler dna sreyolpme ot eciton riaf ylppus ot snoinu eriuqer yam stnemnrevog lanoitan taht SERALCED" but that didn't clear it up. It's still an unnecessary addition.

Upon hearing the delegate from Groot Gouda utter these words, Planting breaks out in a long lasting burst of laughter.

/cough

Sorry, please continue Mr. Ambassador. Trying to hide a smile behind his copy of said proposal.
New Vandalia
05-07-2007, 21:54
And while we're at it, isn't Boba Fett dead?

No, Commander. Boba Fett is now the leader of the Vandalorian people.

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

OOC: He got out of the sarlacc (long story), and was found dying (minus his hair and his ability to procreate), and subsequently nursed back to health, by Dengar's fiancée (Manaroo, or something).

OOC: Close. He was nursed back to health by Dengar and Neelah.
Intellect and Art
06-07-2007, 01:37
I very much appreciate how this proposal does NOT prevent me from dissolving unions found to be overly corrupt and engaging in rights abuse and power games. Unions can be good systems, but there needs to be some room for the natural corruption of the sapient element which displays itself over time to be dealt with. I approve.
St Edmundan Antarctic
06-07-2007, 16:16
Those who oppose unions no matter what will oppose this regardless of what language we insert or what arguments we use to justify it.

Those who tend to support unions will support it.

*Sigh* "You seem to be under the assumption -- which I assure you would be an incorrect one -- that every UN member-nation's government now subscribes to the 'International Federalist' viewpoint...
There will also be at least one government, that although it basically accepts the existence of such organisations within its own nation and the passage of this proposal would consequently not force it to change any of that nation's existing laws on the matter, will oppose this proposal for the alternative reason that it doesn't see why -- as any particular national government's decisions on this topic would be quite unlikely to have any direct effects on any nations other than their own one, and because it sees the 'rights' concerned as significantly less 'fundamental' ones than the right to have a say in how one's home nation is governed which the UN not only will not but (under its core rules) can not even try to guarantee -- this should actually be a matter for such binding international legislation in the first place..."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still, although hopefully not for much longer, required to wear this bloody penguin costume…)
Ausserland
06-07-2007, 17:25
We consider the right of free association for lawful purposes to be a very fundamental human right.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
Schwarzchild
06-07-2007, 18:03
I think some very good things got taken from this discussion. The proposal will be taken back and a good number of concerns addressed here will be addressed.

Picking a proposal date over the US Independence Day holiday was perhaps not the best idea. So I'm sure this proposal will return...with a preamble and some other changes. I think I hear the gnomes fiendishly working away at them now.

I am sure they will reveal those changes in due time, likely after I have had a snort or two.


~S
Yelda
06-07-2007, 18:08
Here is the updated draft, with preamble and grammatical changes courtesy of Ausserland:

Believing that the ability to form and join labor unions is often an important factor in assuring proper compensation and adequate working conditions;

Recognizing that industrial actions are important -- sometimes the only -- means available for workers to successfully influence management decisions,

But also believing that the welfare of the general public must be of paramount concern in weighing the right of workers to engage in such actions,

The United Nations;

1. RESOLVES that all UN member states recognize the fundamental right of everyone to form or join Unions of their choice 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 engage in strikes and other industrial actions, including, but not limited to, work slowdowns, overtime refusal, work-to-rule and general strikes, provided that those actions do not cause physical harm to persons or property;
a. Employers are not required to pay wages of workers while they are on strike.
b. Workers may not be terminated from employment for participating in a legally authorized strike or industrial action.

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

4. NOTES that the extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Resolution shall apply to the armed forces, the police, emergency services, and government employees providing essential public services shall be determined by national laws or regulations.

5. MANDATES that labor disputes involving workers lacking the right to strike under articles 3.b. and 4 of this resolution be settled through binding arbitration administered by an independent and unbiased third party.

6. DECLARES that national governments may require unions to supply fair notice to employers and relevant government agencies in advance of industrial action.

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.

8. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.

9. DECLARES that Unions must abide by national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
06-07-2007, 18:31
The Federal Republic would appreciate definitive language allowing governments to restrict union activity in cases of national emergencies. Though such restrictions can reasonably be instituted under Clauses 3 and 4, we would like there to be no question.

Clause 4 is quite a mouthful. It should be simplified to something of the order: "RESERVES the right of nations to regulate the extent to which this resolution's guarantees shall apply to members the armed services, police, emergency services, and government employees providing essential public services."

Clause 7 raises some concerns for us. If governments can reasonably demand accountability in the leadership of political parties, NGOs and corporate management, why can we not demand the same of union leaders? We would appreciate a statement from the sponsors justifying this clause.

Nonetheless, this article is a vast improvement over its predecessor and we are inclined not to oppose it.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations
Ausserland
06-07-2007, 18:36
The honorable representative of Schwarzchild is quite correct. The latest draft did benefit from comments here. As an example, the addition to Article 2 was in direct response to the concern of a very new member, the honorable representative of Audientes, about sabotage. We thank him for raising the issue.

We think this is a good demonstration of the value of posting drafts here for comment. There were some very experienced members who worked on earlier drafts in private, but nobody thinks of everything.

This draft is not "locked in concrete", folks. Constructive suggestions will still be carefully considered.

As an aside to Sir Geoffrey.... Those miserable gnomes didn't have a bloody fleepin' thing to do with this. We're dwarves, not gnomes! ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Rubina
06-07-2007, 20:14
The Federal Republic would appreciate definitive language allowing governments to restrict union activity in cases of national emergencies. Though such restrictions can reasonably be instituted under Clauses 3 and 4, we would like there to be no question.If such were to be included, the Confederated Hells would insist that "national emergency" be defined in such a way as to prevent dictator du jour from declaring a national emergency every time he got a hang nail.

Clause 4 is quite a mouthful. It should be simplified to something of the order: "RESERVES the right of nations to regulate the extent to which this resolution's guarantees shall apply to members the armed services, police, emergency services, and government employees providing essential public services."Is there a missing "of"?

"....resolution's guarantees shall apply to members of the armed...."

If this wording is adopted, I would suggest "...services, and to government employees..." since the group "government employees" is the only one that has to meet the "public services" test.

Clause 7 raises some concerns for us. If governments can reasonably demand accountability in the leadership of political parties, NGOs and corporate management, why can we not demand the same of union leaders? We would appreciate a statement from the sponsors justifying this clause.Consider this by no means a definitive answer, but for us article 7 doesn't remove the kind of accountability to which you refer. It serves to ensure independent organization of the union and prevent non-member groups from hamstringing the effectiveness of the group. Article 9 restricts unions from participating in illegal activity, which would include fraud (perpetrated both internally on union members or externally on non-members), racketeering, blackmail, and burying the legendary Jimmy Hoffa in the Steelers' end zone.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Ausserland
06-07-2007, 21:55
We'd like to thank Commander Chiang for her thoughtful and constructive comments.

The Federal Republic would appreciate definitive language allowing governments to restrict union activity in cases of national emergencies. Though such restrictions can reasonably be instituted under Clauses 3 and 4, we would like there to be no question.

We're very leery of including any language which treats "national emergencies" broadly. We're mindful that declaration of national emergencies has been a favorite ploy of totalitarian regimes seeking to hamstring the freedom of their people. Our current thinking is that any situation which would be tanatamount to a national emergency would definitely bring Article 3b into play. Nations could determine whether, in light of the national emergency, specific strikes would "significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public," and, if so, prohibit them.

Clause 4 is quite a mouthful. It should be simplified to something of the order: "RESERVES the right of nations to regulate the extent to which this resolution's guarantees shall apply to members the armed services, police, emergency services, and government employees providing essential public services."

Looking at this article in light of the Commander's comment, it does seem that "NOTES" is a poor choice of words. We'll try to come up with something more solid and tinker with the rest of the language a bit.

Clause 7 raises some concerns for us. If governments can reasonably demand accountability in the leadership of political parties, NGOs and corporate management, why can we not demand the same of union leaders? We would appreciate a statement from the sponsors justifying this clause.

We don't share the Commander's concern. Please note that the clause applies only to what might be called the "internal organizing" of the unions. All union members are still required to obey the law of the land. Also, the leadership of the union would be accountable to its membership. Perhaps if the Commander could provide specific examples of the sort of accountability she feels is lacking, we could provide a better answer.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Omigodtheykilledkenny
06-07-2007, 22:26
Upon further reflection, we will drop our request for national emergencies language.

We don't share the Commander's concern. Please note that the clause applies only to what might be called the "internal organizing" of the unions. All union members are still required to obey the law of the land. Also, the leadership of the union would be accountable to its membership. Perhaps if the Commander could provide specific examples of the sort of accountability she feels is lacking, we could provide a better answer.Is there language in this bill requiring union leaders to be accountable to their membership? Because if so I'm not seeing it. Perhaps we're not understanding what is meant by "unwanted external influences"? Would that include laws ensuring clean, fair elections for union officers?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

-----
Is there a missing "of"?

"....resolution's guarantees shall apply to members of the armed...."Yes, I blame the liquor.

If this wording is adopted, I would suggest "...services, and to government employees..." since the group "government employees" is the only one that has to meet the "public services" test.That last clause was actually copied word for word from the original language, but your edit seems to be correct.
Yelda
07-07-2007, 06:33
The Federal Republic would appreciate definitive language allowing governments to restrict union activity in cases of national emergencies. Though such restrictions can reasonably be instituted under Clauses 3 and 4, we would like there to be no question.
Thank you for your inquiries, Cdr. Chiang. I agree with Ambassador Ahlmann's statements on this matter and am pleased to see that you have been persuaded by her arguments. In a genuine national emergency situation Article 3.b. would allow governments to restrict or, if necessary, forbid strikes and other industrial actions.

Clause 4 is quite a mouthful.
I agree. I trust that Ambassador Ahlmann and her staff will provide improved wording.


Clause 7 raises some concerns for us. If governments can reasonably demand accountability in the leadership of political parties, NGOs and corporate management, why can we not demand the same of union leaders? We would appreciate a statement from the sponsors justifying this clause.
I would hesitate to have the UN require that unions adopt a democratic process when it doesn't even require that of its member nations. It's also worth noting that the UN doesn't require that corporations be accountable to their shareholders.

I think you may be assuming that the "unwanted influences" would be coming from people trying to get the union to democratize. However, that wording would also protect unions against unwanted influences from organized crime, radical political elements and other unsavory elements that I think you and I would both disapprove of. (OOC: An RL example would be the influence that organized crime held over the Teamsters in RL. I doubt that in the beginning the union welcomed this influence.)

Yes, the current wording would allow unions to adopt an undemocratic structure if the rank and file were willing to go along with it. But like Ambassador Ahlmann pointed out, the leadership is still accountable to their membership. If the membership desires a democratic structure and the leadership denies their wishes, but the national government is willing to step in and see that the will of the membership is carried out then it isn't really an unwanted external influence.

Also, keep in mind that illegal activity is still illegal. Racketeering, fraud, blackmail, murder and physical threats or violence are still crimes and can be prosecuted.

I think it would be best to allow unions to determine their own internal structure. If it is within the law and the membership is happy with it, then fine. Remember that Article 7 would also protect the right of unions to be democratic, even if the national government desired that they not be.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
St Edmundan Antarctic
07-07-2007, 15:29
We consider the right of free association for lawful purposes to be a very fundamental human right.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations


"But surely allowing it specifically for this proposal's purpose, rather than completely, is a rather less fundamental right than guaranteeing [adult] people the right to elect their nations' governments -- a right for which the UN not only will not but actually can not legislate -- would be? My government takes the view that if the UN can not guarantee that greater right then it trying to insist that the possibly-unelected governments must allow any specific lesser rights within their nations is distinctly presumptuous and beyond the UN's moral authority..."

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this bloody penguin costume…)
Ausserland
07-07-2007, 16:34
"But surely allowing it specifically for this proposal's purpose, rather than completely, is a rather less fundamental right than guaranteeing [adult] people the right to elect their nations' governments -- a right for which the UN not only will not but actually can not legislate -- would be? My government takes the view that if the UN can not guarantee that greater right then it trying to insist that the possibly-unelected governments must allow any specific lesser rights within their nations is distinctly presumptuous and beyond the UN's moral authority..."

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this bloody penguin costume…)


Because the UN can't guarantee democracy for all it shouldn't do anything about other, "less fundamental" rights? The logic of that completely escapes us.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
Rubina
07-07-2007, 17:10
That last clause was actually copied word for word from the original language, but your edit seems to be correct.o.O Oy, it is indeed the same. Must have been mentally correcting in earlier readings.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
07-07-2007, 17:34
I would hesitate to have the UN require that unions adopt a democratic process when it doesn't even require that of its member nations. It's also worth noting that the UN doesn't require that corporations be accountable to their shareholders.

I think you may be assuming that the "unwanted influences" would be coming from people trying to get the union to democratize. However, that wording would also protect unions against unwanted influences from organized crime, radical political elements and other unsavory elements that I think you and I would both disapprove of. (OOC: An RL example would be the influence that organized crime held over the Teamsters in RL. I doubt that in the beginning the union welcomed this influence.)

Yes, the current wording would allow unions to adopt an undemocratic structure if the rank and file were willing to go along with it. But like Ambassador Ahlmann pointed out, the leadership is still accountable to their membership. If the membership desires a democratic structure and the leadership denies their wishes, but the national government is willing to step in and see that the will of the membership is carried out then it isn't really an unwanted external influence.

Also, keep in mind that illegal activity is still illegal. Racketeering, fraud, blackmail, murder and physical threats or violence are still crimes and can be prosecuted.

I think it would be best to allow unions to determine their own internal structure. If it is within the law and the membership is happy with it, then fine. Remember that Article 7 would also protect the right of unions to be democratic, even if the national government desired that they not be.I'm afraid you misunderstand, Ambassador. We're not seeking language mandating democratic elections for union officers. We're simply asking what in this bill precisely makes union leadership accountable to its membership. For instance, if union thugs decide to rig an election for union president, is there any way for a nation to prevent that, or does the "right to be free from unwanted external influences" take precedence?

In addition, relating to the accountability question, will union members have the right to make sure that their paid dues go toward proper administrative purposes, or would "the right to be free from unwanted external influences" allow management to funnel some of that money into politicking?

~Cdr. Chiang
Free San Sombrero
08-07-2007, 13:09
Unions?! Bah! The last time we allowed Unions in San Sombrero, they took over the country! It took a military coup to get rid of them! Moping around trying to downsize the army...telling us that the government isn't doing enough for the poor...asking for people whose name isn't started by "General" to get the vote... to hell with them!

General Salvatore Hernadez
San Sombreran Ambassador to the UN
Ausserland
08-07-2007, 19:54
I'm afraid you misunderstand, Ambassador. We're not seeking language mandating democratic elections for union officers. We're simply asking what in this bill precisely makes union leadership accountable to its membership. For instance, if union thugs decide to rig an election for union president, is there any way for a nation to prevent that, or does the "right to be free from unwanted external influences" take precedence?

In addition, relating to the accountability question, will union members have the right to make sure that their paid dues go toward proper administrative purposes, or would "the right to be free from unwanted external influences" allow management to funnel some of that money into politicking?

~Cdr. Chiang

Our thanks to Commander Chiang for providing those specific questions.

Nothing in this proposal makes a union's leadership accountable to its membership. A union is a free association of its members, dependent for its influence on the size of its membership and for its operation on their dues. Those facts in themselves are what make the leadership accountable to its membership. If the membership doesn't like what the leadership is doing, they can elect new leaders. Alternatively, they can vote with their feet or their pocketbooks.

We think the Commander's concern on this matter might be influenced, in part, by the situation in some societies where there are "closed shops", and workers are forced to belong to a certain union or they can't be employed by a company. The union has a stranglehold on the livelihood of anyone wanting employment there. We call her attention to the fact that this is specifically forbidden by Article 8 of the proposal. Where closed shops and discrimination in favor of union members is allowed, it may be important to have governmental oversight of the unions' internal operations. We don't believe it is under this proposal.

On the second point, speaking only for Ausserland and Wailele Island, we want the members of a union to have the control of how their money is being spent. If they don't like how the funds are used, they can withhold dues or leave the union. On the other hand, there's nothing in the resolution that would stop a nation from passing laws controlling political contributions, e.g., prohibiting contributions by corporations, unions, etc.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
HotRodia
09-07-2007, 07:42
Dude, where's my sovereignty? Just thought I'd get that out of the way for all our sake's. Hopefully no one else feels the need to say it after this point.

On a more practical note, I don't care whether people form unions or not, and I appreciate the thoughtful and well-written draft. I just won't ever vote for it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce
St Edmundan Antarctic
09-07-2007, 11:22
Because the UN can't guarantee democracy for all it shouldn't do anything about other, "less fundamental" rights? The logic of that completely escapes us.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations


"Because, as you yourself pointed out when giving your government's objections to our own proposal on the international transit of goods, the UN should be considering not only the concepts of increased freedoms for individuals and groups but also the rights of its member-nations' governments... and that inability to guarantee democracy is due to the rule ( which I've assumed from the start must actually exist in some form IC, presumably within whatever treaty the governments ratify when they join this organisation, even if it isn't actually covered by any Resolution...) that the UN can not try to ban or mandate any ideologies or systems of government. The most fundamental rights for individuals might be considered important enough to over-ride that promise, but neither I nor my government accepts that the less important rights could reasonably do so: Promising governments the right to continue running their nations' internal affairs according to their accustomed practices if they join the UN but then trying to insist that -- despite that promise -- they must then handle certain internal matters in some particular manner, strikes us as a decidely hypocritical approach..."


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still, although hopefully not for much longer, required to wear this confounded penguin costume…)

_______________________________________________________________________

OOC: We're back to the point that different people have different ideas about what the principle of 'National Sovereignty' involves...
Yelda
09-07-2007, 16:12
New version with improvements courtesy of Ausserland. Changes in red.

Believing that the ability to form and join labor unions is often an important factor in assuring proper compensation and adequate working conditions;

Recognizing that industrial actions are important -- sometimes the only -- means available for workers to successfully influence management decisions,

But also believing that the welfare of the general public must be of paramount concern in weighing the right of workers to engage in such actions,

The United Nations;

1. RESOLVES that all UN member states must recognize and ensure the fundamental right of everyone to form or join unions of their choice for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those unions to establish and join federations and confederations of labor organizations, both nationally and internationally.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to engage in strikes and other industrial actions, including, but not limited to, work slowdowns, overtime refusal, work-to-rule and general strikes, provided that those actions do not cause physical harm to persons or property;
a. Employers are not required to pay wages of workers while they are on strike.
b. Workers may not be terminated from employment for participating in a legally authorized strike or industrial action.

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes or other industrial actions which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

4. RESERVES to the respective member nations the right to determine the extent to which the provisions of this resolution shall apply to:
a. Members of the armed forces,
b. Law enforcement personnel,
c. Providers of emergency services, and
d. Government employees providing essential public services.

5. MANDATES that labor disputes involving workers lacking the right to strike under articles 3.b. and 4 of this resolution be settled through binding arbitration administered by an independent and unbiased third party.

6. DECLARES that national governments may require unions to supply fair notice to employers and relevant government agencies in advance of industrial action.

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.

8. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.

9. DECLARES that Unions must abide by national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
09-07-2007, 16:35
Our thanks to Commander Chiang for providing those specific questions.

Nothing in this proposal makes a union's leadership accountable to its membership. A union is a free association of its members, dependent for its influence on the size of its membership and for its operation on their dues. Those facts in themselves are what make the leadership accountable to its membership. If the membership doesn't like what the leadership is doing, they can elect new leaders. Alternatively, they can vote with their feet or their pocketbooks.

We think the Commander's concern on this matter might be influenced, in part, by the situation in some societies where there are "closed shops", and workers are forced to belong to a certain union or they can't be employed by a company. The union has a stranglehold on the livelihood of anyone wanting employment there. We call her attention to the fact that this is specifically forbidden by Article 8 of the proposal. Where closed shops and discrimination in favor of union members is allowed, it may be important to have governmental oversight of the unions' internal operations. We don't believe it is under this proposal.Our thanks to Amb. Thwerdock for her prompt responses. We have one more question, to which we still haven't received a definitive answer:

Is there any way under this bill that nations can pass laws forbidding fraudulent elections for union officers, or dishonest campaign practices in union elections, or does the language of Clause 7 effectively prevent it?

We remain undecided on this proposal.

~Cdr. Chiang
Yelda
09-07-2007, 17:45
Our thanks to Amb. Thwerdock for her prompt responses. We have one more question, to which we still haven't received a definitive answer:

Is there any way under this bill that nations can pass laws forbidding fraudulent elections for union officers, or dishonest campaign practices in union elections, or does the language of Clause 7 effectively prevent it?

We remain undecided on this proposal.

~Cdr. Chiang
Thank you for your continued interest in this, Cdr. Chiang.

First off, under this legislation unions would not be required to even have elections. They could choose their leaders by drawing straws, flipping coins or by feat of arms if they choose to do so.

Having said that, illegal activities are still illegal. If they do have elections and if, in the process of running their elections, they do things that are illegal under the laws of the Federal Republic then the government may step in.

Look at Article 7:

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.

Now I suppose they could write something into their constitution or by-laws specifically allowing fraudulent elections and dishonest campaign practices. But if they did who would join their organization? "Organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs" doesn't really deal with elections so that part is outside this discussion.

It might be helpful if you could give some specific examples of the types of fraud you have in mind. Chances are your government already has laws on the books which would apply in those situations and those laws would remain in effect after this passes.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Omigodtheykilledkenny
09-07-2007, 18:36
OK, let's say Frankie Four-Fingers wants to win his election for union president, so he has some friends stuff the ballot-boxes. The people in charge of the election like Frankie, so they look the other way. Rumors abound that the election had been fixed, but union management insists Frankie won fairly. Now, could the Federal Republic make laws forbidding this type of shenanigan, or would Clause 7's declaration that unions are free to "organize their administration" against "unwanted external influences" hold true?

If "organizing their administration" is meant to indicate something different than the selection of union leaders, then perhaps the language should be altered?

~Cdr. Chiang
Ausserland
09-07-2007, 20:29
We do wish Commander Chiang wouldn't mention Frankie Four-Fingers again. Our Prime Minister always gets nervous when people start talking about his cousin. ;) Seriously....

Our view is that such election-rigging would and should be handled by the membership. Since Frankie had to resort to stuffing the ballot box in order to win, it's obvious that a majority of the membership opposed him. Those members take action. They might demand a recall, if that's in the union constitution or by-laws. They might stage a dues strike. Or they might resign from the union. Under Article 8, this wouldn't affect their jobs at all. Then they inform management that that they don't want that union as a their bargaining agent. They've formed a new union, and designate it as their agent. Frankie ends up with a union that has less than half its former membership and no money to keep his liquor cabinet stocked. When Frankie and his crew approach management for contract negotiations, management tells them to take a hike.

The key, we think, is Article 8, which removes the ability of union management to force workers to march to their tunes by outlawing closed shops and discriminatory employment practices. It makes it necessary for union leadership to be accountable and responsive to their membership.

All that being said.... The presidency of a union is (we would assume) a paid position. Obtaining that position through stuffing of a ballot box would appear to be fraud. That could most likely be prosecuted under the laws of the nation or subordinate jurisdictions.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambasssador to the United Nations
Allech-Atreus
09-07-2007, 20:44
Now, I have noticed that our discussion is tending more and more toward union rights and not labor rights. Perhaps that is the intent, but it's certainly advantageous to deal with the rights of the worker in regards to union membership. The honorable delegates from Ausserland, Yelda, and Omigodtheykilledkenny are certainly providing excellent dialogue, but to expand on the position held by the Ausserlanders, what rights does the labourer have in regards to union membership?

At the very least, this draft should contain language which expands or elaborates on the right of the worker to join and leave a labour organization at their discretion. While the right of workers to engage in such organization is certainly enshrined, I see no reason in Mlle. Thwerdock's example why Freddy Four-Fingers wouldn't just use his goombas to ensure that no one left the union in the first place.

Certainly, individual governments might make such intimidation illegal, but based on the vague references in the current draft, there is no guarantee that UN legislation would provide any safety in such cases.

Van Turin Lath
His Excellency the Ambassador of Allech-Atreus
Rubina
09-07-2007, 20:57
Now, I have noticed that our discussion is tending more and more toward union rights and not labor rights. Perhaps that is the intent, but it's certainly advantageous to deal with the rights of the worker in regards to union membership. The honorable delegates from Ausserland, Yelda, and Omigodtheykilledkenny are certainly providing excellent dialogue, but to expand on the position held by the Ausserlanders, what rights does the labourer have in regards to union membership?Article 8 contains the safeguards you seek with respect to the rights a laborer has in regards to union membership. At the point a worker determines his future is brighter without union membership (or with different union membership) he is free to disassociate himself from the union with no negative treatment accrued in terms of his employment.

I see no reason in Mlle. Thwerdock's example why Freddy Four-Fingers wouldn't just use his goombas to ensure that no one left the union in the first place.Because such intimidation would be illegal under the nation's criminal code. Explicit repetition of such prohibitions against those criminal acts in this legislation contributes nothing to the effective enforcement of such.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Ausserland
09-07-2007, 23:16
Now, I have noticed that our discussion is tending more and more toward union rights and not labor rights. Perhaps that is the intent, but it's certainly advantageous to deal with the rights of the worker in regards to union membership. The honorable delegates from Ausserland, Yelda, and Omigodtheykilledkenny are certainly providing excellent dialogue, but to expand on the position held by the Ausserlanders, what rights does the labourer have in regards to union membership?

At the very least, this draft should contain language which expands or elaborates on the right of the worker to join and leave a labour organization at their discretion. While the right of workers to engage in such organization is certainly enshrined, I see no reason in Mlle. Thwerdock's example why Freddy Four-Fingers wouldn't just use his goombas to ensure that no one left the union in the first place.

Certainly, individual governments might make such intimidation illegal, but based on the vague references in the current draft, there is no guarantee that UN legislation would provide any safety in such cases.

Van Turin Lath
His Excellency the Ambassador of Allech-Atreus

We appreciate the honorable representative's expression of concern, but we believe the honorable representative of Rubina is quite correct. This resolution deals with situations specific to the labor environment. Certainly there would be many acts which might be committed by union leaders and members which might violate the law of the land. But to try to list all of those would be tantamount to writing a criminal code for the UN. Article 8 of the proposal deals effectively with the two major, labor-specific means by which union leaders exert heavy-handed control of their memberships: the closed shop and contractually-required preferential treatment of union members. If Freddy's goombas threaten violence towards members of the union, that's a matter for criminal law, not labor law.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations
Gausse
10-07-2007, 00:02
Oui. We ov thee Republique de Gausse strongly endorse any proposahl zat endorses zee rights ov human beings.
Allech-Atreus
10-07-2007, 02:49
We are very happy to have our concerns answered in such a prompt and courteous manner. We are happy with the explanation, and withdraw our concerns at this time.

Van Turin Lath
MC Hammer of Justice
10-07-2007, 03:21
We in the nation of MC Hammer of Justice do not believe in these things you call Human rights. It is not for you to decide what rights you get it is only His will that lets us do what we do. Also these 'Labor Unions', or as we will refer to them after this as 'Non-labor Unions', would significantly decrease not only the work of your and my nations companies, but it would let the 'human resources' think that they have some say in the government.

I cannot get behind a proposal that will allow a group of individuals decide what a corporation can do.

Baron von Hammer
UN Sayer Person
MC Hammer of Justice
The Most Glorious Hack
10-07-2007, 05:54
It seems the problem is not so much the concepts, but the phrasing of the clause. Would it be possible to slightly alter it to make its subserviance to the nation's rule of law more clear?

AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs; provided said activities and practices do not violate national law.


Or something along those lines. Less clunky, of course.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Yelda
10-07-2007, 06:05
AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs; provided said activities and practices do not violate national law.
That could work. Let's let the Ausserlander delegation have a look at it, they have a gift for language.

Also, I have made the following change to the draft, as suggested by the aforementioned Ausserlanders:

8. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.

This would prevent employers from offering higher pay to non-union members in an effort to discourage union membership.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
The Most Glorious Hack
10-07-2007, 06:17
That's not a contradiction of the employment Resolution we have? The one Gruen wrote?

I honestly don't know, just thought I'd toss that out.
Yelda
10-07-2007, 06:53
That's not a contradiction of the employment Resolution we have? The one Gruen wrote?

I honestly don't know, just thought I'd toss that out.
IWF is concerned with working hours, it was designed to prevent another "40 Hour Workweek" type resolution. I'll read it over again but I'm pretty sure it doesn't address wages.

Although UN Fair Wage Convention does...

Doh!
MC Hammer of Justice
10-07-2007, 13:12
What if in creating Unions we force them to join a sort of Government 'Plan For Success' That way the people will think they have more power when really the government is still in control and can keep its Corporations safe.
Gobbannium
10-07-2007, 16:22
Clearly the words "unwanted external influence" mean nothing to you. This is one reason I would be very nervous of the Hack's well-meaning suggestion; it essentially makes a mockery of Article 9 and allow governments too much influence. Obviously governments should have some influence, as Cmdr Chiang has already observed, but there need to be limits to what union-specific laws can destroy.
The Yellow Sea Islands
10-07-2007, 17:13
I like this. It covers the important and minor problems. Except for some small loopholes such as the issue of the right of government workers to go on strike. Unfortunately countries are dependent on them, but there are surely other ways they can protest.
Rubina
10-07-2007, 17:25
Except for some small loopholes such as the issue of the right of government workers to go on strike. Unfortunately countries are dependent on themArticle 4d reserves to the nation the determination of whether government workers performing essential services will have the right to strike. Your hands are not tied, sir. Do realize that any such workers denied the right to strike retain the right to binding arbitration in the event of a labor dispute.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
The Yellow Sea Islands
10-07-2007, 17:52
Article 4d reserves to the nation the determination of whether government workers performing essential services will have the right to strike. Your hands are not tied, sir. Do realize that any such workers denied the right to strike retain the right to binding arbitration in the event of a labor dispute.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I'm terroribly sorry. I forgot that part. The incompitancy is all mine. For the record I read the entire proposal. So nobody say I don't read these articals.
Rubina
10-07-2007, 17:54
We all have days like that, Yellow Sea Islands. :)
Yelda
10-07-2007, 18:05
Sooo...does the addition of compensation to Article 8 violate UN Fair Wage Convention? Thoughts?
Quintessence of Dust
10-07-2007, 18:12
I would say, yes.
It is affirmed that UN nations shall retain the right to make final decisions in all matters concerning wages and compensation, taking into account local economic conditions and factors affecting the economic well-being of all their citizenry.
It even contains the word 'compensation'.

No problem with IWF, though, which only applies to working time.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
10-07-2007, 18:14
I really doubt it's a deletable offense, even if it does contradict UNFWA.
Ausserland
10-07-2007, 18:20
That's not a contradiction of the employment Resolution we have? The one Gruen wrote?

I honestly don't know, just thought I'd toss that out.

OOC: Thanks for the heads-up, Hack. I've been checking "UN Fair Wage Convention" and "Individual Working Freedoms" occasionally as we tinkered with this. (I trust my memory about as far as I can throw an elephant.) I can't see any contradictions.
Rubina
10-07-2007, 18:36
I'm not so sure it conflicts, in that the intent of Fair Wage is establishment and provision of a just compensation to all workers based on work done... a minimum-wage act if you will.

The operative clause here is directed at the industry and is concerned with equal pay for equal work. The national government would still have final authority as to the amount paid but can't discriminate between classes of workers. Said limitation is already in effect with respect to women and minorities, so there is already precedent for such limiting on the reservation clause of Fair Wage.
Quintessence of Dust
10-07-2007, 18:45
(At the risk of completely derailing this thread...)

The intent of the UNFWC is irrelevant. It urges a minimum wage, but does not require it; even if it did, it still grants nations the right to determine wage laws. That it was not envisaged as a blocker in the same way that, say, the Abortion Legality Convention was doesn't mean its provision is any less obstructive. And it clearly states that this applies to 'all matters concerning wages and compensation'.
Said limitation is already in effect with respect to women and minorities, so there is already precedent for such limiting on the reservation clause of Fair Wage.
Such resolutions were passed before the UNFWC.
Yelda
10-07-2007, 19:17
Pending further discussion of this matter I'm going to remove compensation from Article 8. If it is deemed legal (or if we can find a way to make it legal) it can be reinserted later.

Also, I think we should consider Hack's suggestion here:
AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs; provided said activities and practices do not violate national law.

For reference, here is the latest draft:
Labor Unions Act (how about Labor Relations Act?)
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Believing that the ability to form and join labor unions is often an important factor in assuring proper compensation and adequate working conditions;

Recognizing that industrial actions are important -- sometimes the only -- means available for workers to successfully influence management decisions,

But also believing that the welfare of the general public must be of paramount concern in weighing the right of workers to engage in such actions,

The United Nations;

1. RESOLVES that all UN member states must recognize and ensure the fundamental right of everyone to form or join unions of their choice for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those unions to establish and join federations and confederations of labor organizations, both nationally and internationally.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to engage in strikes and other industrial actions, including, but not limited to, work slowdowns, overtime refusal, work-to-rule and general strikes, provided that those actions do not cause physical harm to persons or property;
a. Employers are not required to pay wages of workers while they are on strike.
b. Workers may not be terminated from employment for participating in a legally authorized strike or industrial action.

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes or other industrial actions which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

4. RESERVES to the respective member nations the right to determine the extent to which the provisions of this resolution shall apply to:
a. Members of the armed forces,
b. Law enforcement personnel,
c. Providers of emergency services, and
d. Government employees providing essential public services.

5. MANDATES that labor disputes involving workers lacking the right to strike under articles 3.b. and 4 of this resolution be settled through binding arbitration administered by an independent and unbiased third party.

6. DECLARES that national governments may require unions to supply fair notice to employers and relevant government agencies in advance of industrial action.

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.

8. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union membership where employment is concerned. Union members and non-members must be afforded equal treatment in hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions.

9. DECLARES that Unions must abide by national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.
Edit: Put compensation back in #8.
Rubina
10-07-2007, 19:18
The intent of the UNFWC is irrelevant.

Intent is not irrelevant in determining the field of play of a resolution. We also note that the clause of UNFWC you cite contains the restriction on nations' authority over wage and compensation to take "into account ... factors affecting the economic well-being of all their citizenry." Non-discrimination, including compensation, based on union affiliation, supports such well-being.
Gobbannium
11-07-2007, 01:23
AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free from unwanted external influences when drawing up their constitutions and rules, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs; provided said activities and practices do not violate national law.
Does this derail article 9? Would it allow, for example, a nation to legislate that unions may only authorize strikes that are approved by unanimous vote of the union membership in a secret ballot and agreed to by the leader of the government? I understand the assurances we're trying to insert here, but I think we need to be very careful about the wording to avoid opening up a huge loophole.
My crap
11-07-2007, 01:44
I know this isn't really relevant to what people are saying at the moment, but I like this proposal. It stages loads of interesting points that work! It's all for union rights, but it doesn't go over the top to the point where it sabotages government works completely! Much, much better than Cristia Agape's proposal that we had a few weeks ago. Who made this proposal? It's brilliant!

Alden J. VanGaore
Leader of My Crap
UN Regional Delegate for Grow Weed Here
Gobbannium
11-07-2007, 01:58
Cristia Agape wrote a repeal of the previous Union legislation (which had its flaws, but it would have been nice to have seen a repeal of it that didn't lie through its teeth). This version has been put together by a number of people, and honed by the rest of us :-) You're welcome to join in if you spot anything missing or wrongly included.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
11-07-2007, 02:56
Does this derail article 9? Would it allow, for example, a nation to legislate that unions may only authorize strikes that are approved by unanimous vote of the union membership in a secret ballot and agreed to by the leader of the government? I understand the assurances we're trying to insert here, but I think we need to be very careful about the wording to avoid opening up a huge loophole.
2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to engage in strikes and other industrial actions, including, but not limited to, work slowdowns, overtime refusal, work-to-rule and general strikes, provided that those actions do not cause physical harm to persons or property;
a. Employers are not required to pay wages of workers while they are on strike.
b. Workers may not be terminated from employment for participating in a legally authorized strike or industrial action.

3. DECLARES that national governments may exempt from the rights granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union.
b. Strikes which significantly endanger the health or welfare of the public, such as, but not limited to strikes by medical and police personnel.

4. NOTES that the extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Resolution shall apply to the armed forces, the police, emergency services, and government employees providing essential public services shall be determined by national laws or regulations.Unanimous votes or approval of the government don't appear to be among the allowed restrictions for striking rights. I don't know why you think a modification allowing nations to legislate on union organization would affect the right to go on strike, nor can I figure out what you mean by such language "derailing" Article 9. Perhaps I need a language lesson?

The Federal Republic, by the way, would support amending Clause 7 in a manner similar to that proposed by Ms. Pejorative.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations
My crap
11-07-2007, 03:43
Yes I remember it being a repeal; it was fully against Union Rights, which I think have to exist. This time the proposal's asking for Union Rights, (which, when taken too far, can cause problems within government) but there are just enough restrictions on the rights in the proposal, so as not to cause enough problems to damage government. Thanks Gobbanium!! The proposal did look like it had had a lot of thought put into it. It just works! I'm honing it as much as any other person here discussing it. I'll try looking for any loopholes that there could be, but i doubt it will be any worse than Cristia Agape's repeal!! :D
Ausserland
11-07-2007, 06:56
As far as we're concerned, the final clause of NSUNR #187 clearly refers to the sort of decisions discussed in the rest of the resolution: determining minimum or "fair" wages. If we're now to read it so broadly as to ban any UN legislation on anything concerning compensation, then we might as well scrap this whole effort. Nations could prohibit union representation on matters of compensation. They could ban strikes and other industrial actions conducted to obtain better compensation. They could pass legislation providing that compensation determinations were the sole prerogative of the employers, exempt from any requirement for mediation or arbitration. In other words, any anti-union government could emasculate unions.

Failure to include compensation in Article 8 would render the rest of the article relatively meaningless. As someone once said, when it comes to labor, "the power is in the paycheck". Employers could engage in wage-based union-busting. ("If you stay out of the union, we'll raise your pay 10%.") Unions could negotiate preferential contracts to compel membership. (A contract requiring union member to be paid the base wage + 20%.)

If the ruling is that NSUNR #187 does indeed have such broad effect as a blocker as has been suggested, we believe that this proposal must, unfortunately, be consigned to the dust bin.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister
Yelda
11-07-2007, 07:43
We agree with the Ausserlander delegation. If compensation cannot be included within the provisions of Article 8 then there really isn't much point in continuing with this.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
The Most Glorious Hack
11-07-2007, 07:58
Feelin' lazy. Could someone please post the relevent section of UN Fair Wage Convention?
Yelda
11-07-2007, 08:14
Feelin' lazy. Could someone please post the relevent section of UN Fair Wage Convention?

(VIII) It is affirmed that UN nations shall retain the right to make final decisions in all matters concerning wages and compensation, taking into account local economic conditions and factors affecting the economic well-being of all their citizenry.
The Most Glorious Hack
11-07-2007, 08:30
taking into account local economic conditions and factorsI would say unions are "local economic conditions and factors". So, nations will need to keep such things in mind. If union and non-union workers are to be paid the same, the nation will need to keep that in mind. Also, as Ausser mentions, that clause probably should be read in context of the rest of the bill, which deals with minimum wages, and not all wages in general.

Looks okay to me, I guess. If Fris wants to overrule/expand, he's welcome to, but adding a line about compensation should be fine.
Gobbannium
11-07-2007, 16:34
Unanimous votes or approval of the government don't appear to be among the allowed restrictions for striking rights. I don't know why you think a modification allowing nations to legislate on union organization would affect the right to go on strike, nor can I figure out what you mean by such language "derailing" Article 9. Perhaps I need a language lesson?
Apologies for my lack of clarity. Article 9 is a statement that (inter alia) maintains that national law doesn't take priority. The proposed addition introduces an area in which national law does take priority. Now I fully accept that something of the sort would help, I'm just trying to explore the potential down sides of that particular form of words.

The right to go on an authorised strike is maintained by the proposal, fine. The key word, however, is "authorised." How a union authorises strike action is a feature of its internal organisation, and most definitely shouldn't be under the control of international legislation. Within limits, it would seem to be a good idea for it to be under the control of national legislation: it wouldn't be unreasonable for a democratic state to require that strike action had some sort of democratic mandate, for instance. The problem is that if the wording allows that sort of national law imposition on a union's internal organisation, what are the limits? The questions I am uncertain of are whether the proposed changes (a) allow that sort of legislation, (b) allow more extreme legislation that makes it nearly impossible to authorise a strike, and (c) could be modified to rule (b) out even if that means sacrificing (a) too.
Yelda
11-07-2007, 17:00
Looks okay to me, I guess. If Fris wants to overrule/expand, he's welcome to, but adding a line about compensation should be fine.
Thank you Hack. I'll put compensation back in then.
Yelda
11-07-2007, 17:06
Apologies for my lack of clarity. Article 9 is a statement that (inter alia) maintains that national law doesn't take priority. The proposed addition introduces an area in which national law does take priority. Now I fully accept that something of the sort would help, I'm just trying to explore the potential down sides of that particular form of words.

The right to go on an authorised strike is maintained by the proposal, fine. The key word, however, is "authorised." How a union authorises strike action is a feature of its internal organisation, and most definitely shouldn't be under the control of international legislation. Within limits, it would seem to be a good idea for it to be under the control of national legislation: it wouldn't be unreasonable for a democratic state to require that strike action had some sort of democratic mandate, for instance. The problem is that if the wording allows that sort of national law imposition on a union's internal organisation, what are the limits? The questions I am uncertain of are whether the proposed changes (a) allow that sort of legislation, (b) allow more extreme legislation that makes it nearly impossible to authorise a strike, and (c) could be modified to rule (b) out even if that means sacrificing (a) too.
We certainly don't want it to cover strike votes but what if we worded it so that it only covers the election of union officers?
Gobbannium
11-07-2007, 17:16
We certainly don't want it to cover strike votes but what if we worded it so that it only covers the election of union officers?

As long as it's law concerning electoral malfeasance we're talking about. I wouldn't want absolute quorums making small unions impossible, or anything like that.

Sorry to be awkward. I have a feeling someone's going to have to slap me with the Reasonable Nation Theory before too long.
Ausserland
11-07-2007, 17:19
The more we read the back-and-forth discussion of Article 7, the more we get the itchy feeling that it needs a hard second look. Maybe it's time to stop nibbling at the periphery and focus on the center. So we'll pose this question here, so that both our colleagues in the drafting effort and those uncomfortable with the Article can comment....

Just exactly what are the "unwanted external influences" we're trying to prevent?

Maybe if we can get that clear, we can write something that would be an improvement on the current wording.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Yelda
11-07-2007, 17:45
Just exactly what are the "unwanted external influences" we're trying to prevent?
I saw them as criminal organizations, political organizations and anti-union governments trying to infiltrate the union or influence it in some way.

Most of the concern regarding Article 7 seems to revolve around ensuring that the election of union officers be free from fraud and corruption.

Now, we could address that within Article 7 by adding something like: "However, in situations where union officials are elected, national governments may enact legislation requiring that said elections meet minimum democratic standards and are free from fraud and corruption". Or something like that.

Or we could address it in a new Article. I think we have room within the character limit.
Rubina
11-07-2007, 17:55
Just exactly what are the "unwanted external influences" we're trying to prevent?Anything or anyone that, unbidden, exerts undue pressure on the members with respect to the formation and governance of the organization.

Such pressure comes from the government and industry primarily, but can also come from competing unions and (rarely) criminal organizations. Control of the first three is achievable through legislation; elimination of closed shops and application of criminal law (found elsewhere in the proposal) addresses the last.
Frisbeeteria
11-07-2007, 18:04
If Fris wants to overrule/expand, he's welcome to, but adding a line about compensation should be fine.

I'm not following this discussion at all. Hack's ruling is fine, I'm sure.
Omigodtheykilledkenny
11-07-2007, 18:22
I saw them as criminal organizations, political organizations and anti-union governments trying to infiltrate the union or influence it in some way.

Most of the concern regarding Article 7 seems to revolve around ensuring that the election of union officers be free from fraud and corruption.

Now, we could address that within Article 7 by adding something like: "However, in situations where union officials are elected, national governments may enact legislation requiring that said elections meet minimum democratic standards and are free from fraud and corruption". Or something like that.

Or we could address it in a new Article. I think we have room within the character limit.Maybe "unwanted external influences" is the only problematic language, then? We could retool clause to affirm this right, yet avoid the "external influences" stuff:

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organize their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs.This way, unions are free from unwanted external influences; under Article 9, however, nations can still require that these activities be subject to national statutes covering electoral malfeasance, and nations still cannot impede upon this right.

Make sense? ... No?
Rubina
11-07-2007, 18:30
This way, unions are free from unwanted external influences; under Article 9, however, nations can still require that these activities be subject to national statutes covering electoral malfeasance, and nations still cannot impede upon this right.Except that that wording could fairly easily be interpreted as preventing any outside influence, even assistance the nascent union has requested.
Ausserland
11-07-2007, 18:47
Nope. If the union is free to do that stuff, they're free to draw upon any outside sources they wish. At first reading, we think the language suggested by the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny looks fine.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Gobbannium
11-07-2007, 21:22
Positive rather than negative; always a win! Thank you.
Yelda
12-07-2007, 05:40
Maybe "unwanted external influences" is the only problematic language, then? We could retool clause to affirm this right, yet avoid the "external influences" stuff:
7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organize their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs.

This way, unions are free from unwanted external influences; under Article 9, however, nations can still require that these activities be subject to national statutes covering electoral malfeasance, and nations still cannot impede upon this right.

Make sense? ... No?
Yes. I find this acceptable.
The Most Glorious Hack
12-07-2007, 08:09
Except that that wording could fairly easily be interpreted as preventing any outside influence, even assistance the nascent union has requested.Not as such, no. Rights, by definition, can be willingly given up; in whole or in part. Thus, unions can be completely free from external influence, they can still accept some or all assistance that is available, provided said influence/assistance doesn't violate national laws. Thus they could, for instance, accept a grant from the government to fund elections, but couldn't accept money from a crime syndicate.

Next Question:

From my reading, the government would be able to pass a law saying "all national organizations with more than 1000 members must have their leaders elected by a 3/4ths majority," but couldn't pass a law stating "all unions must have their leaders elected by a 3/4ths majority". So, they could pass global laws about elections, but not ones that only target unions; right?
St Edmundan Antarctic
12-07-2007, 15:45
From my reading, the government would be able to pass a law saying "all national organizations with more than 1000 members must have their leaders elected by a 3/4ths majority," but couldn't pass a law stating "all unions must have their leaders elected by a 3/4ths majority". So, they could pass global laws about elections, but not ones that only target unions; right?

OOC: Well, that's certainly how I was reading it, and how the St Edmundan Antarctic's government would probably apply it (barring Gnomish intervention) too.
And of course, on that basis, there could also be national laws requiring any organisation that collects regular subscriptions from its members (and that has more than some specified number of members) to have its accounts independently audited, at least once a year, as well.

And national laws saying that no position of authority in any organisation with more than 'X' members could be held by any person who was on an official list of prohibited individuals... ;)
Palentine UN Office
12-07-2007, 20:28
The Palentine would tentatively support this resolution. We prefer to hold unions to a high standard of accountability to its members(especially in situations regarding workplace safety). However after reading the proposal I believe that individual nations would be allowed the freedom to do so, if they desire. So I don't have too many objections.
Ausserland
12-07-2007, 23:09
From my reading, the government would be able to pass a law saying "all national organizations with more than 1000 members must have their leaders elected by a 3/4ths majority," but couldn't pass a law stating "all unions must have their leaders elected by a 3/4ths majority". So, they could pass global laws about elections, but not ones that only target unions; right?

As far as we're concerned, that's correct. As long as the law was of general application and didn't contradict the specific provisions of the proposal, no problem.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Rubina
15-07-2007, 21:35
This has been resubmitted as of today.

It can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labor%20relations) for purposes of endorsement. Tell a friend or two.

--L.T.
Snefaldia
16-07-2007, 05:26
We like very much what we see!

In favor.


Bhaku-kudurri-usur
Chief Archivist, Snefaldia UN Mission
Omigodtheykilledkenny
16-07-2007, 05:53
We don't normally support Human Rights proposals offered up in these halls -- or any measure that would grate against the pro-corporate sentiments of our commercial sponsors -- but we are very appreciative of efforts by this bill's sponsors to correct the fatal errors of past unions legislation, and to accommodate our concerns about accountability in union management. Therefore, we are inclined to abstain on this measure, rather than vote against.

~Cdr. Chiang
Yelda
16-07-2007, 18:27
Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=labor)
Omigodtheykilledkenny
20-07-2007, 06:20
I don't think it made it this time. Was anyone telegramming for this proposal? Would you fancy some help the next time you submit?
Yelda
20-07-2007, 06:31
I don't think it made it this time. Was anyone telegramming for this proposal? Would you fancy some help the next time you submit?
Yep, it had full TG support. I'd say 500+ were sent. We'll be doing it again Monday(ish) and as always, any and all help is appreciated.