PASSED: UN Labor Relations Act [Official Topic] [Archive]

Ausserland

24-07-2007, 05:53

The following proposal has just been resubmitted for approval. We believe it strikes a fair and reasonable balance between the need for workers to be able to act as organized groups to ensure fair treatment and the need for the general public to be protected from harmful labor activity. If you're a delegate, we would very much appreciate your taking a moment to consider adding your approval. If you're not a delegate and believe this deserves to be brought to a vote, please ask your delegate to approve it.

UN Labor Relations Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rubina

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
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 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.

Co-author: Ausserland.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Labor)

Previous discussion of drafts can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531839).

Thank you.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Omigodtheykilledkenny

24-07-2007, 15:43

An impressive showing after just one day on the list. One question though: It does say "Co-authored by Ausserland," but who is the author? I assumed it was Yelda, but his name appears nowhere on the proposal. And why is Rubina always the one to submit? Doesn't it shock you that with all the unpaid labor she does for you, she hasn't gone on strike yet?

Rubina

24-07-2007, 17:24

Thanks for noticing and we'd like to encourage your regional representative to add his approval to the ground swell.

The best answer to your question is there is no single author. The proposal is a collaborative work with a large number of contributors from across the political spectrum, including yourself. Yelda is indeed the driving force and initiating author. Ausserland's contributions to the proposal are substantial enough to warrant a co-author nod. Rubina submits at the request of Yelda. The branding rules complicate the apparent provenance.

Strike? No dear, we're collecting documentation to support a request for a significant wage increase at the next contract negotiations. ;)

Omigodtheykilledkenny

24-07-2007, 17:39

Well, then, in that case, it probably should have said "Authored by Yelda" instead of "Co-authored by..." Although we do support a pay raise for the Rubinans. 635 days of delegacy in a founderless region merits some sort of compensation.

Rubina

24-07-2007, 18:24

It was done the way it was at the instruction of Yelda, as a more accurate description of the actual authorship. If there is any error in interpretation of instructions on submission it is my own.

We'll convey your support of a raise to those holding the purse strings. ;)

Iamloco

24-07-2007, 18:44

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

It is what you say it is: a belief. It is not a nessessary nor the only tool to defend the rights of the worker. The text admits that by saying that it "is often and important factor". Why would you make one tool mandatory and neglect every other other. While I agree that unions can protect the rights of the worker, it doensn't always do this and is open to abuse.

Strikes or other industrial actions not authorized by a union
Why give the union the monopoly on strikes? Again I fear unions will abuse this.

And finally, why would the UN need to legislate this? Regulating unions can just as well be performed by individual nations. International regulation here has no advantage over national regulation. This proposal is just a tool to impose one persons ideology on another. If this is passed it is a little step towards making proposals such as: "dictatorships are forbidden", "communism is forbidde", etc.

Yelda

24-07-2007, 18:55

One question though: It does say "Co-authored by Ausserland," but who is the author? I assumed it was Yelda, but his name appears nowhere on the proposal.

The best answer to your question is there is no single author. The proposal is a collaborative work with a large number of contributors from across the political spectrum, including yourself. Yelda is indeed the driving force and initiating author. Ausserland's contributions to the proposal are substantial enough to warrant a co-author nod. Rubina submits at the request of Yelda. The branding rules complicate the apparent provenance.

Well, then, in that case, it probably should have said "Authored by Yelda" instead of "Co-authored by..."

It was done the way it was at the instruction of Yelda, as a more accurate description of the actual authorship. If there is any error in interpretation of instructions on submission it is my own.
Yes, the branding rules are sort of constricting in this case. Ninety percent of the time the single co-author rule is fine, but here we have a proposal which could have legitimately had 5 or 6 co-authors.

Ausserland made the most substantial contributions (including writing the entire preamble) so I though it was fitting to list him as co-author. Yelda isn't in a position to submit this proposal at this time but Rubina was kind enough to offer to submit it on my behalf and do massive TGing in support of it. I'm not bothered about not getting a co-author credit but it would have been nice if we could have listed everyone because this really was a collaborative effort.

Also, I support a substantial raise for Rubina.

Yelda

24-07-2007, 19:39

Why would you make one tool mandatory and neglect every other other.
Where does it say that the formation of unions is mandatory? Where does it say that workers must join these unions once they are formed? This resolution is protecting the right to organize, nothing more.

As for the rest of your arguments, I don't care. We've debated this topic off and on for the past 3 or 4 years and like most hot-button topics (abortion, CP, euthanasia) opinions on it are well formed and unlikely to change. The arguments both for and against unions are old and tiresome and I really couldn't care less what you think on the subject.

If you oppose unions on principle my advice is to vote against this when it comes to vote.

Iamloco

24-07-2007, 19:51

Where does it say that the formation of unions is mandatory? Where does it say that workers must join these unions once they are formed? This resolution is protecting the right to organize, nothing more.

The people having the right to organize equals that it is mandatory for the goverment (=me) to give them that right.

As for the rest of your arguments, I don't care. We've debated this topic off and on for the past 3 or 4 years and like most hot-button topics (abortion, CP, euthanasia) opinions on it are well formed and unlikely to change. The arguments both for and against unions are old and tiresome and I really couldn't care less what you think on the subject.

If you oppose unions on principle my advice is to vote against this when it comes to vote.

Too bad you dont care. I thought you would have been more willing to debate. I must admit that it would be very hard for you to change my mind but perhaps other readers of this topic will vote for if you can refute my arguements and make me look like a total fool. If you have been working on this subject for over 3 years perhaps you shouldnt find the discussion old and tiresame and perhaps you should care what people think.

Rubina

24-07-2007, 21:09

It is what you say it is: a belief. It is not a nessessary nor the only tool to defend the rights of the worker. ... While I agree that unions can protect the rights of the worker, it doensn't always do this and is open to abuse.A number of us, and in fact if this passes the majority, based on rational analysis believes that workers' right to organize is indeed necessary. Your focus on the word "believe" smacks of the no-nothings who dismiss scientific theories as "just a theory".

As far as unions being open to abuse, you seem to be confused by those entities existing in the mythical world of RL. Most of those abuses are possible because of "closed shops", which, by the way, are prohibited with this resolution.

If this is passed it is a little step towards making proposals such as: "dictatorships are forbidden", "communism is forbidde", etc.Really? That would be an impressive accomplishment, since it's not within the power of this body to ban specific ideologies.

The people having the right to organize equals that it is mandatory for the goverment (=me) to give them that right.Yes that's true. You, however, asserted that the proposal would make unions mandatory, which is in error.

Too bad you dont care. I thought you would have been more willing to debate. I must admit that it would be very hard for you to change my mind but perhaps other readers of this topic will vote for if you can refute my arguements and make me look like a total fool.The delegate from Iamloco perhaps has no idea the temptation he has laid before us. Alas, our medications are balanced today.

Had you brought forth a new or well-thought question or objection, responses might be different. But you yourself admit that you are not entering into an open-minded dialogue. No, you are here to throw rocks and rattle windows with what essentially amounts to an 'I don't like unions so nyah' argument.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador and
Regional Delegate

Ausserland

24-07-2007, 22:02

It is what you say it is: a belief. It is not a nessessary nor the only tool to defend the rights of the worker. The text admits that by saying that it "is often and important factor". Why would you make one tool mandatory and neglect every other other. While I agree that unions can protect the rights of the worker, it doensn't always do this and is open to abuse.

Why give the union the monopoly on strikes? Again I fear unions will abuse this.

And finally, why would the UN need to legislate this? Regulating unions can just as well be performed by individual nations. International regulation here has no advantage over national regulation. This proposal is just a tool to impose one persons ideology on another. If this is passed it is a little step towards making proposals such as: "dictatorships are forbidden", "communism is forbidde", etc.

The representative is entirely correct that unionization is not the only tool available to workers to defend their rights. However, it is a widely used and proven tool. The proposal aims to ensure its availability to all workers. We fail to see why its not being the only tool is a reason to oppose this proposal. The statement that the proposal makes the tool "mandatory", is, we believe, inadvertently misleading. Nothing in the proposal requires unionization; it simply guarantees its availability. As for "neglecting" other tools.... There are limits to how much can be reasonably and effectively covered in a single proposal. If the representative would care to draft additional legislation in the area, we'd be happy to give it careful attention.

Without tying the ability to strike to an organized body, you would simply invite the wildcat strike. Chaos.

And yes, this sort of thing could be done by individual nations. But then we move on to the question of whether it would be done by individual nations. The answer, as shown by the history of labor legislation in this body, is clearly "sometimes". It comes down to this.... If you think the right to organize should be ensured for all workers, vote for this proposal. If not, vote against it.

Finally, once again, we reject the fallacious and continually disproven "slippery slope" argument. If the representative cares to do some research, he'll find that the specific examples he cites are clearly against the rules governing the NSUN.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Iamloco

24-07-2007, 22:59

Finally, once again, we reject the fallacious and continually disproven "slippery slope" argument. If the representative cares to do some research, he'll find that the specific examples he cites are clearly against the rules governing the NSUN.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Say your nation has dictatorial regime with a planned economy (ooc: for example ussr). The goverment then decides what needs to be produced, who will produce it, what the wages (if any) will be, where and for how long everyone should work,... The people of course have no input whatsoever, there is no freedom of speech. How can such a system exist when the government cannot forbid the formation of unions and strikes?

Do you think that the UN has the right to forbid such systems? This is why I said it wouldnt be a big step away from the UN banning communism or having mandatory democracy. Any nation allowing unions does take a big step towards democracy. Am I wrong to see a very close similarity between the two, and if so why?

Perhaps dictatorships dont really need a reason to arrest people so when people strike they can arrest them for any random reason they please?

I admit that under the above reasoning not many UN proposals would be legal.

And yes, this sort of thing could be done by individual nations. But then we move on to the question of whether it would be done by individual nations.

If it isnt done by individual nations, does the UN have the right to enforce this upon nations? Don't nations have autonomy over this?

The representative is entirely correct that unionization is not the only tool available to workers to defend their rights. However, it is a widely used and proven tool. The proposal aims to ensure its availability to all workers. We fail to see why its not being the only tool is a reason to oppose this proposal. The statement that the proposal makes the tool "mandatory", is, we believe, inadvertently misleading. Nothing in the proposal requires unionization; it simply guarantees its availability. As for "neglecting" other tools.... There are limits to how much can be reasonably and effectively covered in a single proposal. If the representative would care to draft additional legislation in the area, we'd be happy to give it careful attention.

Without tying the ability to strike to an organized body, you would simply invite the wildcat strike. Chaos.
I have to agree with most of the things said in the quote above. You cant put everything in one proposal right. If nations use other tools than unions to protect the rights of workers, then probably nobody is gonna want a union if the other tools do what they are supposed to do.

Had you brought forth a new or well-thought question or objection, responses might be different. But you yourself admit that you are not entering into an open-minded dialogue. No, you are here to throw rocks and rattle windows with what essentially amounts to an 'I don't like unions so nyah' argument.

In my opinion I was open minded and well-thought. I never said I was not willing to enter in an open-minded dialogue, very difficult does not equal impossible. I do like unions and my nation does allow unions but I can imagine nations where unions might be against ideology.

Most of those abuses are possible because of "closed shops", which, by the way, are prohibited with this resolution.

Can you explain closed shops and how the resolution prohibits it?

Flibbleites

25-07-2007, 00:36

Gobbannium

25-07-2007, 02:30

Say your nation has dictatorial regime with a planned economy (ooc: for example ussr). The goverment then decides what needs to be produced, who will produce it, what the wages (if any) will be, where and for how long everyone should work,... The people of course have no input whatsoever, there is no freedom of speech. How can such a system exist when the government cannot forbid the formation of unions and strikes?
If the honoured ambassador would care to indicate how he believes unionisation would forbid such a system, we would find it easier to demonstrate why we believe his fears to be unfounded. Alternatively, we understand that the Ambassador of Zyrwic has on more than one occasion lectured this assembly on the nature of 'soviets' or 'collectives', and therefore the reason why the more specific example in fact demands unionisation.

Perhaps dictatorships dont really need a reason to arrest people so when people strike they can arrest them for any random reason they please?
Perhaps they do not; such is sometimes the nature of dictatorships. We feel it important none the less that they not be able to arrest a person for taking part in a lawful strike action.

I admit that under the above reasoning not many UN proposals would be legal.
Would you perhaps then also accept that since over two hundred proposals have been legally passed by the UN, there must be some flaw in your reasoning?

If it isnt done by individual nations, does the UN have the right to enforce this upon nations? Don't nations have autonomy over this?
A better question, we would suggest, is should nations have autonomy over this? As is often the case with issues of civil rights, and to the very carefully limited extent to which this proposal intrudes, it is our belief that they should not.

In my opinion I was open minded and well-thought. I never said I was not willing to enter in an open-minded dialogue, very difficult does not equal impossible. I do like unions and my nation does allow unions but I can imagine nations where unions might be against ideology.
The impression left by your words was quite contrary to this attitude. It certainly left us with the impression that you were implacably against unions in principle. We are gladdened to hear otherwise, even if your declaration does leave us with the uneasy echo of "some of my best friends are unions" ringing in our ears.

Can you explain closed shops and how the resolution prohibits it?
Closed shops are arrangements with employers that all people employed by the company (or a division of the company, or the like) must be members of a specific union. As you can imagine, this places a good deal of power in the hands of the union leaders, and distances that power from the union members. Power being a strong corrosive, this has a marked tendency to lead to abuses.

The resolution prohibits closed shops in clause 8 by requiring that union membership or the lack thereof may not be a factor in employing a person.

Citenka

25-07-2007, 10:31

Kivisto

25-07-2007, 14:36

Please, can someone explain to me, if in my nation we will outlaw all labor unions that don’t include half of the total working population, will this be legal under this resolution?

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

I believe that it would be illegal as a result of this line

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

I must admit that this seems to capably deal with my issues from past legislation on the matter of labour unions. I am still not a huge fan of labour unions, but I am having difficulty coming up with any specific objections that I can make stick to this.

Unless someone can convince me, I won't be voting against. Not a ringing endorsement, I know, but I can see me being easily swayed more in favour of this resolution's passage.

Diamond states

25-07-2007, 16:44

:):confused:hi,i'm new here. the idea of a union is good,good for the protection of workers yes?and if this proposal passes it becomes mandatory for all UN member nations. you could lose a lot of nations. how about voluntary? Voluntary means a choice

Omigodtheykilledkenny

25-07-2007, 17:23

Er, could a moderator please sticky this and alter the title?

Intangelon

25-07-2007, 17:43

ABSTAIN.

That's an inprovement from my usual "against" on this issue, and it's done in the name of the effort put into this version of the resolution. I am still convinced that national laws should govern a nation's workers and that national governments know what's best for their workforce.

Ausserland

25-07-2007, 17:46

Er, could a moderator please sticky this and alter the title?

That would be appreciated. This thread is fairly fresh, and there doesn't seem to be any need to clutter up the place with a separate "AT VOTE" thread.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Disc Golfing

25-07-2007, 18:33

Ausserland

25-07-2007, 19:09

"that those actions do not cause physical harm"

What if the union's striking actions cause mental or emotional anguish? I've voted for it, begrudgingly, but the ideas presented in this forum are making me change my mind. It has less to do with protecting the welfare of citizens than with imposing ideas and international regulation.

We'd respectfully direct the attention of the representative to Clause 3b of the resolution. We think it answers his concern.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Ausserland

25-07-2007, 19:26

:confused:hi,i'm new here. the idea of a union is good,good for the protection of workers yes?and if this proposal passes it becomes mandatory for all UN member nations. you could lose a lot of nations. how about voluntary? Voluntary means a choice

We'd like to welcome our new colleague from Diamond States to the Assembly.

What the resolution does is guarantee the workers in UN nations the right to decide for themselves whether to unionize, while leaving national governments the ability to protect their people from irresponsible union actions. If we were to leave it "voluntary" for nations to comply, authoritarian governments that want to keep their people under the thumbs of their business owners could just outlaw unions. That's just what we want to prevent.

Also, since the representative is new here, we'll point out one section from the Rules for UN Proposals:

Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Xenofungus

25-07-2007, 19:26

I would like to put forth an observation. I myself am pro-union in many ways, but I believe that there are some inherent flaws in the system which, if made mandatory, would be detrimental to many countries.

Firstly, unions would give more power to the common man in the region of economy, which drives the country toward socialism, but it still has capitalistic roots. This, in turn, would mean that countries that are already socialist will be taking a step backwards and, for those who are fond of dictatorship, will give the people a foothold to overthrow their government. While those of you strong believers of the capitalistic and democratic views would cheer at this, imagine what those people with other views might take.

Secondly, most unions have a monthly due, which takes away from the members salary. While many people would say "they can make that up with the increased wages", most of the time they cant. By increasing wages for the lowly worker, the profits of the company go down. Imagine a 25¢ increase in hourly wages. It may not seam like much, but multiply that by a 40 hour work week ($10) for 10,000 employees ($100,000). The company now has to come up with another $100,000 A WEEK just to pay for this raise. to make up for this, there are 3 main options:
1) Lay off employees, causing the number of unemployed to increase and lowering production
2) Increase production, which tires the workers out and makes them less efficient and moody
or 3) Raise price of goods, which raises price of living, which constitutes pay raises in other companies and spins out of control in a vicious cycle of raising payment and raising price of living. Increased price of living also means that there is less money for the workers to spend on non-essentials like union membership.

Thirdly, as was already mentioned, the leaders of the unions will gain power based on the numbers of members, and power corrupts. These leaders have a tendency to use the unions to bring about what they want, not what the union wants (or needs)

A better solution that would bring about the same result (although angering big business) would be to set up co-ops, companies (usually of 100 people or less) that are owned, run, and managed by the workers. This would rid the economy of the caste system of boss/manager/worker and would give all the workers a fair share of the wages, which come directly from the profits of the business. All decisions are made by voting within the company, meaning that all workers have a say in what the company is doing, and co-ops can band together to work on larger projects too big for a single co-op.

The Genoshan Isles

25-07-2007, 19:30

Would you perhaps then also accept that since over two hundred proposals have been legally passed by the UN, there must be some flaw in your reasoning?

Stupid proposals have been legally passed before. Could this be another one?
Personally, I don't believe it is up to the UN to govern labor in its member nations.

However, in a Communist/Socialist society, couldn't the Communist Party of (insert-country-here) be the labor union? So, the ideology argument doesn't hold water.

I will discuss this with my Delegate. As for now, the Genoshan Isles will hereby ABSTAIN.

(As if you thought there would be something different.)

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Gobbannium

25-07-2007, 19:33

Stupid proposals have been legally passed before. Could this be another one?
With respect, ambassador, you are talking here at cross-purposes with the original thread of conversation. We think the answer to your rhetorical question is a clear "No", given the amount of work that has been put into this proposal by nations of all opinions on the subject.

Personally, I don't believe it is up to the UN to govern labor in its member nations.
Nor does this proposal seek to do so. It merely ensures that member nations will govern their labour, and will do so in a fair and reasonable manner.

Disc Golfing

25-07-2007, 21:59

We'd respectfully direct the attention of the representative to Clause 3b of the resolution. We think it answers his concern.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Unfortunately, it doesn't. What if the strikers are demonstrating in an emotionally crippling matter to the corporation?

When you write a proposal, it should have fireproof writing so questions like these would be irrelevant. All you'd have to do is add a few words to cover everything, but they've been left out. As such, my vote has been changed to AGAINST.

Is it just me or do most nations nowadays simply see a proposal and vote for it because it sounds decent without reading the fine print?

Rubina

25-07-2007, 22:34

"that those actions do not cause physical harm"

What if the union's striking actions cause mental or emotional anguish?

What if the strikers are demonstrating in an emotionally crippling matter to the corporation?... [M]y vote has been changed to AGAINST.

Corporations have emotions now? They can feel blue? Or manic? Do they become jealous of wandering lovers?

We wondered at your first statement, to whom a strike would create mental anguish, and how such anguish would rise to a level to exceed the mental anguish a worker feels when having to negotiate the value and conditions of their labor on an uneven playing field. Your second statement was much more revealing. Pity the poor corporations and their fragile emotional state.

I will repeat Ambassador Ahlmann's direction for you to review article 3b. If an industrial action were to be determined by your national government to be harmful to the general welfare of the public, it can take action to end (or prevent) said action.

As for you changing your vote, that is your prerogative. We note your government, as a corporate police state, wasn't very likely to support the legislation in the first place.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

Citenka

25-07-2007, 22:59

I’m sorry, but I have another stupid question. Can two workers create new independent labor union that will include only them?
If this resolution protect their right to do this, then Clause 3a will be absolutely useless.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Rubina

25-07-2007, 23:10

You have to ask yourself, how much leverage would a union consisting of two people have?

--L.T.

Xenofungus

25-07-2007, 23:25

Citenka

25-07-2007, 23:27

They can start protected by this resolution strike. This will give everyone an ability to start legal strikes anytime they want. For what Clause 3a is created then?

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Cham3leon

25-07-2007, 23:28

I am all for section 4 of this proposal, and would like to encourage Members of the armed forces, Law enforcement personnel, Providers of emergency services, and Government employees providing essential public services to form Unions, but in doing so, have it included in the resolution, their Union powers suspended in cases of state emergency

Rubina

26-07-2007, 00:06

not much, but if many unions of two people cropped up and each went on strike at the same time with different demands, it could be quite devastating because the company would have to meet each persons individual demands.Your position is contradictory. If a two-person union has little influence and the firm's workers are so chaotic in their needs that they can't form unions any larger than two members, what makes you think such a disparate group of people could possible cooperate to "devastate" the company or that a company would take such demands seriously?

They can start protected by this resolution strike. This will give everyone an ability to start legal strikes anytime they want. For what Clause 3a is created then?Ambassador Cabaladze, you're indulging in the fringes of "the evil union" argument. Union members have no desire to strike. It is the absolute last action, taken only after all other attempts at communication have failed. The scenario (the two-person union striking willy-nilly) you have put forth is incredibly unlikely. There is a greater chance that we would be struck by falling meteors in this assembly. Article 3a serves to prevent wildcat strikes, which, because of the lack of organization are difficult to control and resolve. They are undesirable because there is little structure to encourage dialog.

~snip~It's our opinion that, that is exactly the way the resolution is intended to work. Thank you for your perception.

--L.T.

Akimonad

26-07-2007, 00:14

We're voting....

*thinks*

...

*thinks some more*

...

*arrives at final decision*

For. Now shaddup about us being anti-fluffy. It's true, we are, but I'm tired of hearing it.

~You know the drill.

Citenka

26-07-2007, 00:26

Ambassador Cabaladze, you're indulging in the fringes of "the evil union" argument. Union members have no desire to strike. It is the absolute last action, taken only after all other attempts at communication have failed. The scenario (the two-person union striking willy-nilly) you have put forth is incredibly unlikely. There is a greater chance that we would be struck by falling meteors in this assembly. Article 3a serves to prevent wildcat strikes, which, because of the lack of organization are difficult to control and resolve. They are undesirable because there is little structure to encourage dialog.

But if every two persons can act like they are members of there own labor union, what prevents wildcat strikes then?

Please don’t understand me wrongly, in my country any person is already has rights granted by this resolution. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka will vote for this resolution in any case. I’m just interested in the reasoning behind Article 3a.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Logopia

26-07-2007, 00:32

The Logopian Government agrees with the intent of this proposal and we mostly agree with its content. However, we must voice a concern we deem of most importance:

Under Logopian Law, employers are free to have two kinds of enployees in their workforce.
a) "Trusted Employees"- Cannot be members of a union. They must occupy management or other high level or decison making positions.
b)"Unionized Employees"- As the word says, they are members of unions. They cannot occupy management, high level or decision making positions.

We believe these arrangement is fair and in some cases necesary in balancing the power held by unions and management. I would be happy to elaborate on this, if the my hounoured colleagues so request.

We are concerned that under point 8 this legislation would be illegal. If this is the case, we must vote against this proposal and we urge nations with similar laws to also vote against.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to the U.N.

Disc Golfing

26-07-2007, 02:09

Corporations have emotions now? They can feel blue? Or manic? Do they become jealous of wandering lovers?

We wondered at your first statement, to whom a strike would create mental anguish, and how such anguish would rise to a level to exceed the mental anguish a worker feels when having to negotiate the value and conditions of their labor on an uneven playing field. Your second statement was much more revealing. Pity the poor corporations and their fragile emotional state.

I will repeat Ambassador Ahlmann's direction for you to review article 3b. If an industrial action were to be determined by your national government to be harmful to the general welfare of the public, it can take action to end (or prevent) said action.

As for you changing your vote, that is your prerogative. We note your government, as a corporate police state, wasn't very likely to support the legislation in the first place.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

The fact that my "nation" is a corporate police state has nothing to do with my vote. I use my nation to see the depths of humanity at their lowest while retaining a powerhouse economy. I see U.N. issues as if they were actual real-world issues, and I base my judgement more on that than what system to which my imaginary nation belongs.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-07-2007, 02:38

For. Now shaddup about us being anti-fluffy. It's true, we are, but I'm tired of hearing it.

~You know the drill.... Huh?

Tyler Cooper

26-07-2007, 02:41

The Kingdom of Tyler Cooper is dedicated towards the Sacred Principles of Stability and Prosperity

However, these Sacred Principles were almost violated when Union uprisings nearly shut down the Kingdom's vital Gambling Industry!

Labor "unrest" must be quelled, not encouraged.

Therefore I must inform my esteemed colleagues that I whole-heartedly reject this resolution.

Gobbannium

26-07-2007, 02:48

The fact that my "nation" is a corporate police state has nothing to do with my vote. I use my nation to see the depths of humanity at their lowest while retaining a powerhouse economy. I see U.N. issues as if they were actual real-world issues, and I base my judgement more on that than what system to which my imaginary nation belongs.

OOC: huge mental graunching noises.

IC: we are somewhat shocked to hear from the honoured ambassador that his nation's vote is uninfluenced by his nation's outlook. While we personally welcome such a free-thinking nature, particularly given the nature of his nation, it rarely bodes well for a representative's tenure in this assembly.

Rubina

26-07-2007, 03:04

I see U.N. issues as if they were actual real-world issues, ... OOC: Then you're bound to be disappointed, because one of the ground rules here is the NSUN doesn't deal with real life.

IC: We're still waiting for an explanation of how corporate entities feel emotions.

--L.T.

Xenofungus

26-07-2007, 03:47

The heads of the corporations (CEOs, managers, the boss man) are typically humans and, from our limited observations, we have concluded that these heads of corporations, unlike some heads of government, are not immune to normal human emotional responses. And since these heads of corporation "run" the corporation, they are in effect the corporation itself. Therefore, we conclude that corporations can, in effect, have emotions.

-The Oppressed People of Xenofungus

Eastern Noble

26-07-2007, 04:07

This resolution is infringing upon the rights of each nation's government to decide how organizations within their respective economies should be handled. I can't believe nobody is seeing this!

My crap

26-07-2007, 04:22

Posted by Eastern Noble:

This resolution is infringing upon the rights of each nation's government to decide how organizations within their respective economies should be handled. I can't believe nobody is seeing this!

No, people are seeing this, or at least I am anyway :). The truth is that the nation can warp the rules but the UN resolution keeps them regulated so if they go too far in either direction, it can pull them back.

Glad the proposal finally passed!

Alden J. VanGaore
Leader of The Crazed Gregorian Chanters My Crap
UN Delegate of Grow Weed Here

Rubina

26-07-2007, 04:35

...since these heads of corporation "run" the corporation, they are in effect the corporation itself. Therefore, we conclude that corporations can, in effect, have emotions.Synecdoche is a lovely literary tool. It has no place in the making of law.

--L.T.

Gun Uphoria

26-07-2007, 04:39

This screws up ALL of my economic situation.... people striking and lowering my production output? i cant have it, non-union members get payed more anyways...

Xenofungus

26-07-2007, 04:50

Yes, I had a post that I typed up pointing out several flaws with this proposal and several alternates that would support both sides of the issue, but it got kicked into the "needs moderator approval" pile, so I guess I'll have to wait to speak my full views on this subject.

Also, although I may come off as highly anti-union, I actually support unions in many aspects. I just don't think that all nations should be forced to recognize them because unions, although they work great in some countries, can totally decimate others.

-stay tunned for the complete article-

Edit: Never mind, it appeared, its on page 2 for those who have not seen it

Wylers

26-07-2007, 04:55

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.

My Fellow UN Members:

Since when does this international body have the right to tell my nation or any other nation for that matter, what laws that it can or CANNOT pass? All nations have their own problems and concerns. It's up each and every nation to make laws that THEY see fit. I am personally going to encourage my regional UN delegate and other members to vote against this resolution.

UN member for PRW :mad:

Flibbleites

26-07-2007, 05:06

You have to ask yourself, how much leverage would a union consisting of two people have?

--L.T.I can bring all work in my office to a screeching halt by going on strike, and I'm only a union of one.

My Fellow UN Members:

Since when does this international body have the right to tell my nation or any other nation for that matter, what laws that it can or CANNOT pass? All nations have their own problems and concerns. It's up each and every nation to make laws that THEY see fit.
I refer you to Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Wylers

26-07-2007, 05:19

I refer you to Rights and Duties of UN States.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So you are saying the the UN can make laws in member countries?

New Vandalia

26-07-2007, 05:20

Right, looks like another "debate" I'll be monitoring from the bar...

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

Global Corporate Inc

26-07-2007, 05:22

Unions: Because they worked SO well in Detroit...

Give me a break. Unions are antiquated organizations that fund nothing more than their own existence and inhibit a free market. Furthermore, the proof is in the pudding that unions turn good companies into bankrupt companies and ultimately do their members a disservice.

Saskachewa

26-07-2007, 05:28

Honorable delegates,

The People of Saskachewa send greetings and well beings too all in the UN. Our society was once a victim to granting infinite powers to corporations and them abusing the community's trust. With a balancing of the forces in society, where one's interest is for the majority of people to work for longer hours and less pay, and the majority of people's interest is to work less hours for more pay, one will be less oppressive with the majority of people.

I support this for our brothers and sisters who still live in CAPITALIST ECONOMIES, as of TODAY, our GREAT NATION which is truely of the people, has imploded its capitalistic or fake economy for an economic system that is good for all, not just for selected few, who throughout history have claimed a right that no other race on earth has ever done, claimed PRIVATE PROPERTY. Through inheritance the accumulation of wealth was passed down from generation to generation ensuring the same elites, with the same values, ideas, systems, etc. Instead of natural process that steadily improve races, our unnatural system has actually put our human race backwards. There is scientific evidence that societies such as the Egyptians, Moors, Indigenous peoples of "America" were more advanced than our former consumerist economy.

VOTE FOR LABOR RELATIONS ACT

New Vandalia

26-07-2007, 05:38

Wow...after being subjected to that absurd diatribe from the representative of Sasquatch or whatever...yeah, off to the bar.

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

Wylers

26-07-2007, 05:50

Our society was once a victim to granting infinite powers to corporations and them abusing the community's trust :rolleyes:

Now your society is a victum of granting infinite powers to a corrupt government and letting them abuse the trust. ;)

Specatus

26-07-2007, 06:49

I am afraid that if this notion passes, I will withdraw from the UN. The UN cannot force me to take an action that would be devastating to my economy. The workers owe the producers and the thinkers for their inventions which yield the jobs they have. The producers don't owe the workers anything.

The Most Glorious Hack

26-07-2007, 07:27

We wondered at your first statement, to whom a strike would create mental anguish, and how such anguish would rise to a level to exceed the mental anguish a worker feels when having to negotiate the value and conditions of their labor on an uneven playing field.Not that I subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems to me a strike by, say, garbage collectors, could certainly cause anguish to the people who are watching their trash pile up.

Probably none too healthy, either.

I'm not saying this is a legitimate objection; just a possible one.

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

The Twin Dragon

26-07-2007, 07:53

i just wanted to remind you all the purpose of a body such as the UN....
i know that most of you are afraid of an outer body that make obligatory laws...but that is it's purpose...
the UN is supose to defend the people from their abusive leaders...
and i want to remind that while laws past by the UN are obligatory membership isn't so if you don't want to be effected by the laws past here you can just leave your member card at the counted and cut yourself off of the rest of the world....

Yelda

26-07-2007, 07:57

Not that I subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems to me a strike by, say, garbage collectors, could certainly cause anguish to the people who are watching their trash pile up.

Probably none too healthy, either.

I'm not saying this is a legitimate objection; just a possible one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Yes, but a strike by garbage collectors would fall under 4.d.
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.
And if the garbage collectors worked for a private company, rather than the city, it could still fall under 3.b.
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.
So the anguish would only happen if the government allowed it to.

And while I'm on the subject, that earlier claptrap (can't remember who said it) about corporations experiencing mental anguish is an example of why I'm less than enthusiastic about debating this.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Kampia

26-07-2007, 09:43

i think something must be done to ensure that corrupcy and power issues will not eat up the labor unions in future years, government must have some kind of control over the leaders, suggesting making a govt. based civil board that over sees labor union leader actions.

The Dagian islands

26-07-2007, 10:10

If this is passed it is a little step towards making proposals such as: "dictatorships are forbidden", "communism is forbidde", etc.

Why would this have anything to do with communism or dictatorships? In fact, the purpose of unions is to defend the rights of workers and marxism's intent is to prevent the alienation and benign slavery of workers to industrialization. Unionization is a concept of social justice and is if anything a step towards socialism.

Also, the function of the united nations is not to protect nationalistic rights of governments, but to project Locke's concepts of human rights into a global concensus. In uniting the world, we can assure that the rights of all people are protected at the fundamental level. This makes legislating the right to unionize absolutely necessary. It cannot be left up to the legislation of individual nations when its purpose is to prevent injustice from those nations governments. If you oppose the idea of workers being allowed to unionize, then vote against this resolution, if it fails then it shows that the values of the world as a whole don't consider unionization a necessary RIGHT. But even if an issue could be considered fundamental as a right for all individuals, then it naturally must be legislated on the global scale.

South Romanar

26-07-2007, 11:40

We recognize that unions are not perfect. However, before the conflict that caused us to form our separate nation, we were part of an evil corporate-controlled state. We've seen the excesses corporations are capable of. Unions truly ARE necessary. I vote for.

Larry Libowizz, UN rep from South Romanar.

Citenka

26-07-2007, 13:48

I’m sorry for taking your time, Ambassador Talone, but you are probably don’t hear my last question.
But if every two persons can act like they are members of there own labor union, what prevents wildcat strikes then?
My government will vote for this resolution, but I’m really interested in the answer.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Xenofungus

26-07-2007, 14:03

I find a slight problem with this discussion board. Far too many nations look at the resolution and say "this sounds good" and never gives it a second thought. It appears that most people here are either outraged that such a resolution is up for vote or are such hardcore defenders of unions that discussions from either side are falling on deaf ears. Most of the people that could be swayed one way or the other haven't come here so that most of our debates are in vein. Looking at the list of delegates that have voted, I have only noticed a handful from either side that have made comments on this discussion.

Frisbeeteria

26-07-2007, 14:22

I find a slight problem with this discussion board. ... Looking at the list of delegates that have voted, I have only noticed a handful from either side that have made comments on this discussion.
How is that a problem with this discussion board, and not simply player apathy? We'd welcome a solution from you, as it has evaded the rest of us for nearly five years.

Iamloco

26-07-2007, 14:24

Why would this have anything to do with communism or dictatorships? In fact, the purpose of unions is to defend the rights of workers and marxism's intent is to prevent the alienation and benign slavery of workers to industrialization. Unionization is a concept of social justice and is if anything a step towards socialism.

Communist dictatorships dont have to have the wellbeing of the workers in mind. Many that have claimed to be socialist and communist have violently forbidden unions

Also, the function of the united nations is not to protect nationalistic rights of governments, but to project Locke's concepts of human rights into a global concensus. In uniting the world, we can assure that the rights of all people are protected at the fundamental level. This makes legislating the right to unionize absolutely necessary. It cannot be left up to the legislation of individual nations when its purpose is to prevent injustice from those nations governments. If you oppose the idea of workers being allowed to unionize, then vote against this resolution, if it fails then it shows that the values of the world as a whole don't consider unionization a necessary RIGHT. But even if an issue could be considered fundamental as a right for all individuals, then it naturally must be legislated on the global scale.

Among lockes ideas of human rights are freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. No doubt they are very valuable concepts, but does the UN have the right to enforce this upon member nations. It wont be long untill the only nations that are left are NY times democracies.

Akimonad

26-07-2007, 14:34

... Huh?

I'm confusing you! Can you believe it?

Xenofungus

26-07-2007, 14:49

How is that a problem with this discussion board, and not simply player apathy? We'd welcome a solution from you, as it has evaded the rest of us for nearly five years.

I probably should have stated this differently, not as a problem with the board itself, but as something that is detrimental to UN discussions. As for solutions, the only thing I can think of is a pop-up or something of the sort strongly urging the voters to at least check out the discussion before making their final vote. Say they click vote yes/no, a pop-up comes up saying "we strongly urge you to check out the discussion before placing a final vote" (you may need to reword this a bit differently), then having a button linking to the discussion, another one for voting.

Logopia

26-07-2007, 15:24

Akimonad

26-07-2007, 16:25

I probably should have stated this differently, not as a problem with the board itself, but as something that is detrimental to UN discussions. As for solutions, the only thing I can think of is a pop-up or something of the sort strongly urging the voters to at least check out the discussion before making their final vote. Say they click vote yes/no, a pop-up comes up saying "we strongly urge you to check out the discussion before placing a final vote" (you may need to reword this a bit differently), then having a button linking to the discussion, another one for voting.

OOC: There's a link below the proposal that says "Debate this issue in the UN forums". That good enough?

Honoured Ambassadors

We believe it is absurd for employees in high level management or decision making positions to belong to a Union, since:

1-The relationship between unions and employers is often confrontational in nature.

Yeah. So?
2-High level positions represent employers interests, as opposed to those of workers.

Huh?
3-Having unionized workers in high level positions gives a very unfair advantage to unions over employers

How so?

We therefore believe employers should be able to discriminate against union members when hiring employees for high level management or decision making positions. We note that under clause 8 of this resolution, employers would not be able to do this.

Clause eight means that you can't be fired just for being in a union. It's a nice feature. And once you get to high-level management, you start becoming the "employers".

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Akimonad

26-07-2007, 16:28

Among lockes ideas of human rights are freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. No doubt they are very valuable concepts, but does the UN have the right to enforce this upon member nations. It wont be long untill the only nations that are left are NY times democracies.

Locks? Where do locks play into this? Is Building Mgmt getting involved in the debates? I thought they were at the picket line...

And the UN has the right to force anything upon all member nations. That's why it's the UN. If you don't like, the exit is to your left.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Govindia

26-07-2007, 16:46

Govindia agrees with the Logopians.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that we have our own labour laws in practise and as such, we do not think the UN should tell us how we should manage labour relations disputes. That is strictly an internal matter.

Therefore, we urge everyone to vote with us and the Logopians by voting AGAINST this proposal.

Regards,
Sanjay Ardyash
Govindian Ambassador to the United Nations

Xenofungus

26-07-2007, 16:48

Akimonad

26-07-2007, 17:01

Locke was a English philosopher who had great impact on political philosophy, among other things. He was often considered one of the greatest philosophers of his day (17th century) and his ideas still reverberate today.

OOC: I know who Locke is. He doesn't exist in NS, however, as NS is entirely separate from the RL world.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-07-2007, 17:07

Harry Potter and the Bible exist in NS, but not Locke? OK then...

Akimonad

26-07-2007, 17:12

Harry Potter and the Bible exist in NS, but not Locke? OK then...

OOC: Meh.

IC:
Ahem. Please tell President Fernanda that the Kivistans are here, disguised as stupid delegates.

[/secret plan]

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Opendia

26-07-2007, 17:19

Why would this have anything to do with communism or dictatorships? In fact, the purpose of unions is to defend the rights of workers and marxism's intent is to prevent the alienation and benign slavery of workers to industrialization.

That is a good point, however Marx's book the Communist Mannifesto is not the basis for communism, it is the basis for a form of extreme socialism. Communism was almost completely created by Stalin. You should agree that Stalin held almost complete control over his workers and allowed them very little freedoms, and has been compared to Nazism and Fascism. I am not arguing against Stalin's ideals or reasons, I am simply stating that it would be difficult to maintain complete control over an economy without complete control over the workers. While I have no problems allowing unions within my nation, I do have problems with giving unions a monopoly over strikes. Futhermore, I also find it difficult to accept this proposal when one of the nations in my region is a corporate police state and this proposal could, in effect, destroy that nation's economy. One could argue that UN membership is optional, however is it fair to deny international politics for all corporate police state nations? I say no. Therefore as UN delegate of Nova Prospect, I refuse to accept this proposal unless someone can prove the above points wrong.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Logopia

26-07-2007, 17:22

Esteemed Dr Hodz

I can see a number of scenarios in wich having a high level position employee belonging to a union would be an unfair advantage to the union. Wouldn't a HR director who belongs to a union have a clear conflict of interests when negotiating pay raises wiht the union? Wouldn't a general manager who belongs to a union be tempted to put the unions interests before those of the corporation and its investors?

We believe unions should exist to represent workers interest but also as a balance to the power held by the employers. We believe this would be most difficult when high level positions are held by unionized employees.

Clause eight means that you can't be fired just for being in a union. It's a nice feature.

We have to respectfully disagree. Clause 8 is clearly much broader in scope than just employment termination, we note that it refers to hiring, work assignment, compensation, promotion, training and education, and disciplinary actions

While we believe Clause 8 is generally fair, we do not believe it applies to high level positions.

And once you get to high-level management, you start becoming the "employers".

This is precisely what we belive clause 8 might prevent.

We would like to make clear that Logopia is not an anti-union nation. Our only concern about this propsal is the wording of clause 8. We would definitely support it if said clause contained a provision that alllowed employers to exclude high level positions from unionized workers.

Iris Fairchild

Ausserland

26-07-2007, 17:50

Honoured Ambassadors

We believe it is absurd for employees in high level management or decision making positions to belong to a Union, since:

1-The relationship between unions and employers is often confrontational in nature.
2-High level positions represent employers interests, as opposed to those of workers.
3-Having unionized workers in high level positions gives a very unfair advantage to unions over employers

We therefore believe employers should be able to discriminate against union members when hiring employees for high level management or decision making positions. We note that under clause 8 of this resolution, employers would not be able to do this.

For the above reasons, Logopia opposes this resolutions and votes accordingly.

Of course we are not closed to debate, and would certainly change our position if compelling reasons were brought forward.

Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to the U.N.

The honorable representative raises a valid concern. We'd ask her to please consider that Clause 8 forbids discrimination "based on Union membership". You cannot deny employment or discriminate simply because a person is a union member. This prevents closed shops and preferential treatment, two significant means union leaders have used to keep workers under their thumbs. It does not prevent refusing to hire or dismissing an employee for failure to properly perform their job duties.

Now, I'm hiring for a management position. I make it clear to all prospective hires that they will be expected to support the management position in all situations of dealing with the union. That's a valid and reasonable condition of employment for such positions. It's a part of the job. Failure to agree to that disqualifies a candidate. Failing to do it, once hired, is grounds for dismissal. Their union membership is irrelevant; it's the job performance that counts.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Iamloco

26-07-2007, 18:57

Locks? Where do locks play into this? Is Building Mgmt getting involved in the debates? I thought they were at the picket line...

And the UN has the right to force anything upon all member nations. That's why it's the UN. If you don't like, the exit is to your left.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Anything upon all member nations? I really doubt that. Why should I leave the UN if I can try to change? Telling people to shut up or leave really isnt good behaviour.

OOC: I know who Locke is. He doesn't exist in NS, however, as NS is entirely separate from the RL world.

He may exist in ns, he may not exist. That isnt really important, what is important are the ideas that do exist.

Rubina

26-07-2007, 20:01

I can bring all work in my office to a screeching halt by going on strike, and I'm only a union of one.We're oddly reminded of the old joke about the argument between parts of the body as to which is most important. Ah scatological union humor. ;)
________
But if every two persons can act like they are members of there own labor union, what prevents wildcat strikes then?My sincerest apologies, Ambassador Cabaladze. I did indeed not hear your question. We still contend that the scenario you describe is implausible to the point of being less than useful. However...

If a union, no matter its size, authorizes a strike, said strike by definition is not a wildcat strike. If other unions join that strike without cause of their own, they are participating in a sympathy strike, also not considered a wildcat strike. Were a large number of such unions formed for malicious purpose and coordinating such industrial action, they might very well fall under the public welfare (article 3b) and/or criminal provisions (article 9) of this act.

As was discussed earlier (perhaps you weren't present then), this resolution does not prevent a national government from legislating in the area of formation and conduct of organizations, as long as such legislation is not exclusively directed at unions.
________
[The UN can force] Anything upon all member nations? I really doubt that. Why should I leave the UN if I can try to change? Telling people to shut up or leave really isnt good behaviour.It is true there are limits to the authority of this body. We can not, for example, ban dictators from our presence or decree that members must eschew capitalism. Beyond those special limits however, the NSUN's business is what it makes it. The fundamental truth for nations that can't accept that is that they always have the option of leaving. Nations, of course, must decide for themselves whether staying or leaving is best for their nation and when to draw the line and take their ball home. Telling someone to shut up or leave is indeed bad manners; it is also a sign of frustration with delegates who don't grasp the essential nature of a voluntary, international organization.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Midgardent

26-07-2007, 20:37

The People's Republic of Midgardent's Government proposes to edit some parts of the act which is being voted, and the proposal goes as follows:

I.-The People's Republic of Midgardent's Government, concerned about worker's and union's rights, enforces the freedom of Unions to run their own organizational programs, but affirms, that in many known cases, this right has been exploited by some corrupt employers who, abusing of their economical power, have enforced corruption within leaders of Unions without a well established organization by starting a profit venture at expense of those who belong to Unions, and giving money, actions and other sources of economical power, to those leaders, but exchanging them for enforcing less the goals of workers, and even stop their strikes or demonstrations, or any other discouraging program just because of the same exact cause: corruption.
These leader-buying problems have arised in many countries, included Midgardent, whose government, had to pass a legislation which limited the freedom of organization of Unions, to a second Board elected within them, run by workers to watch and enforce honesty between Union leaders and employers.

The problem arises, as the seventh article of the act being voted, gives back total freedom to organizate in any liked way, which may mislead many rural workers in many countries, who have never had a Union, and may easily be confused to elect one or more leaders, without watching him or them, who, after all, may be corrupted by the employer(s) involved, and this will directly affect the economy, or, damage the worker's rights, who would have no institution within their Union to defend them, and therefore, these crimes would remain with no punishment, because of a non-existent restriction to organizational corruption.

In Midgardent, the government proposes, having the above-mentioned situation as background, and the passed legislation in its country as direct proof of functionality, that the seventh article of the Act, which reads:

that, the United Nations;

"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."

Be edited, so that it becomes:

that, the United Nations;

"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 programs, as long as an official Supervision Board elected within the Union, watches and encourages watching the honest relations between Union leaders and employers."

After this article has created a Supervision Board, it, therefore, must have its own regulating organic law, which could be fulfilled by a provisional includement of an article within this same Act, which may read, within a section of:

TRANSITORIAL ARTICLES:

the United Nations;

1. MANDATES that the Second Transitory Article of this act, be separated into an Organic Law for Union's Supervision Boards in no more than one week after it has been passed.
2. DECLARES that all Supervision Boards must be mandatory within Unions, and, that they may be subject to administrational changes applied by workers, but they shall follow these conditions:
a. Every Supervision Board shall be conformed by six voluntary members for each section of the Union, who will not be paid for contributing with their positions, and shall be divided as follows: two workers, two independent citizens, and two representatives of the enterprise.
b. Every Supervision Board shall be elected through free and secret sufrage amongst members of a Union, and thereby replaced every 2 years; unless a recall petition is sent to the administrative section of the Union.
c. A Supervision Board shall always be able to denounce and report corruption within its Union, after which a judicial investigation will take progress;
d. Any member of a Supervision Board may resign with two months of anticipation;
e. A Supervision Board shall not assume an Administrative Position, and thus, has no other obligation than to follow the previous articles, and no other right, than those established within them.

End of the proposal.

The People's Republic of Midgardent's Government states that all of these reformed and added articles were written after the same principles which the United Nations' proposal is based on.
Midgardent and its people hopes this proposal to be taken for consideration, so that people enjoy the same exact rights, without corruption being merged into their acts.

Frisbeeteria

26-07-2007, 20:58

The People's Republic of Midgardent's Government proposes to edit some parts of the act which is being voted ...

Sorry, proposals at vote can't be edited. They pass or fail exactly as written.

However, you WILL find lots of DRAFT topics here in the UN forum, and you're more than welcome to apply the same rigorous analysis to help other folks get their proposals Approved. You might even enjoy doing one of your own.

Govindia

26-07-2007, 21:11

The honorable representative raises a valid concern. We'd ask her to please consider that Clause 8 forbids discrimination "based on Union membership". You cannot deny employment or discriminate simply because a person is a union member. This prevents closed shops and preferential treatment, two significant means union leaders have used to keep workers under their thumbs. It does not prevent refusing to hire or dismissing an employee for failure to properly perform their job duties.

Now, I'm hiring for a management position. I make it clear to all prospective hires that they will be expected to support the management position in all situations of dealing with the union. That's a valid and reasonable condition of employment for such positions. It's a part of the job. Failure to agree to that disqualifies a candidate. Failing to do it, once hired, is grounds for dismissal. Their union membership is irrelevant; it's the job performance that counts.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

What do you think Wal Mart does? The only place they DO allow unions is in China, for obvious reasons <_<.

I still remain firmly against this proposal.

Midgardent

26-07-2007, 21:16

Ausserland

26-07-2007, 21:23

It's a shame that the representative of Midgardent didn't participate in the discussions of the drafts of this resolution. He's obviously put a lot of thought into the matter, and we would have enjoyed discussing it with him. In fact, his concerns were raised by others during those discussions and considered at some length.

Our view is that corruption and other problems with union leadership should be and can be dealt with by the union members themselves. By removing the possibility of closed shops and other preferential treatment (Sec. 8), we're taking away the major powers of union leadership to coerce members into remaining in the union. If the union members don't like how their leadership is operating, they can vote the leadership out of office. If that doesn't work, they can leave the union, maybe forming a competing union. And, of course, if the leaders violate national laws of general application (e.g., embezzlement or use of violence), they can be criminally prosecuted.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Omigodtheykilledkenny

26-07-2007, 21:35

What kind of legislation is this? A country cannot propose an edition for a proposal?
So what if that change is important to Midgardent?
Will my country be able to make the change to the Act, or at least, send the whole Act edited as it would have ended when edited?
Please tell this country how and when if yes.Sorry, but this is a game. We can't keep recoding it every time someone wants to change something that's already come to vote. Like others have already told you, the amendment stage occurs during the draft process on this forum, and that's the time to pipe up when you want an alteration.

Midgardent

26-07-2007, 21:40

It is a good point to prohibite closed and open shops, but in Midgardent, we consider that ending discrimination within work centers, and stopping leaders from forcing employees to stay with the membership or from taking them out of office is not enough, but is good and that is why we didn't object to that part, however, to stop corruption you need true representation and observation, and your point only grants the first one, but observation is the other part, and it can be called in the form of a Board without a salary, also able to be recalled, and then every aspect of corruption would be not only objected, but true action could be taken against it, something that doesn't happen in real Unions; I think I must consider a real country: Mexico, because otherwise, my examples would fail.
There you see some unions where workers can get the leaders out if they don't work properly, and whose work centers have no discrimination, but corruption is still present, and it is because the leaders take this technic, which this legislation doesn't consider:

Union leaders who are taken out, start campaign in favor of a new candidate, however, that campaign remains secret mostly paid by the employer, because he persuades not only the new candidate, but also the previous leader and starts a new campaign, and while there are limits for the number of candidates elected, even without those limits, the new candidates are always near of corruption started by ex-leaders and employers, and even if they can be proven guilty, no denounce is presented in a pertinent time.

That is why we consider, in Midgardent, that a Supervision Board, without a salary, more than being more bureocracy, is a factual utility.

Iamloco

26-07-2007, 21:41

It is true there are limits to the authority of this body. We can not, for example, ban dictators from our presence or decree that members must eschew capitalism. Beyond those special limits however, the NSUN's business is what it makes it. The fundamental truth for nations that can't accept that is that they always have the option of leaving. Nations, of course, must decide for themselves whether staying or leaving is best for their nation and when to draw the line and take their ball home. Telling someone to shut up or leave is indeed bad manners; it is also a sign of frustration with delegates who don't grasp the essential nature of a voluntary, international organization.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I admit that I favour a more minimalistic role for the UN and judging from some of the comments made by others I am surely not alone. The UN's business is what it makes it, but the business proposed here today doesnt have to be the UN's business. Just as others want a more active role for the UN, I can strife for a less active role. What you call a fundamental truth, is something that can be changed and thus the option for nations that can't accept that truth isn't to leave the UN but to try and change it from within to make a (in my opinion) better fundumantel truth (I woudln't call it fundamental or even a truth, just something more people like than dislike). The same goes for what you call the essential nature of the UN. There are only opinions on what this is. I find it very dangerous that someone claims to know what the essential nature is and that it is an arguement used to ask people to leave the UN.

I must congratulate you for saying the same as the first person who told me leaving the UN is the best option in such a subtle and diplomatic matter.

Govindia

26-07-2007, 22:32

I admit that I favour a more minimalistic role for the UN and judging from some of the comments made by others I am surely not alone. The UN's business is what it makes it, but the business proposed here today doesnt have to be the UN's business. Just as others want a more active role for the UN, I can strife for a less active role. What you call a fundamental truth, is something that can be changed and thus the option for nations that can't accept that truth isn't to leave the UN but to try and change it from within to make a (in my opinion) better fundumantel truth (I woudln't call it fundamental or even a truth, just something more people like than dislike). The same goes for what you call the essential nature of the UN. There are only opinions on what this is. I find it very dangerous that someone claims to know what the essential nature is and that it is an arguement used to ask people to leave the UN.

Sanjay looks to the direction of the Iamlocoan representative and stood up and clapped his hands. "I couldn't agree more with you sir," he said, and he sat back down.

Gizico

26-07-2007, 22:56

The labor unions in each country will have different effect on the economy overall. First, its not the UN job to superseed national or local labor regulations. Second, Unions have a right to exist but let those rules be determine at the local level. Finally, Unions could call wildcat strikes and those alone cripple commerce when one industry workstoppage is to support another industry. Authoriran countries will set up unions just to control the workers rathen than represent them.

Better proposal be worker safety regulations, and prevention of child labor abuse, or the use of slave labor, or prision labor than dictating another countries labor laws

Midgardent

26-07-2007, 23:15

The People's Republic of Midgardent's Government's Diplomatic Section disagrees firmly with the last post; by portraying that, while the United Nations' role is to improve the performance and development of the world -or, at least of the great community of members who belong to it-, there is also a great responsibility to guide the application of law within the member countries, and though I support you in not centralizing these labors, also I admit that voting for and against the proposals, will have a worldwide effect, and that is why here we have such a huge need to participate in the worldwide legislation.
For if we want a worldwide community, with laws worldwidely approved, we also need to apply them worldwide; and that is the only goal we follow here.
And about selecting what's best for Unions locally, that is exactly what the Government of Midgardent promotes, but also there must be some regulations applied worldwidely, to obstruct corruption by limiting some aspects which have shown that even locally, the corruption may get in.

Rubina

26-07-2007, 23:27

I must congratulate you for saying the same as the first person who told me leaving the UN is the best option in such a subtle and diplomatic matter.And let me congratulate you for misinterpreting everything I said. I neither told you to shut up nor to leave the UN.

The fundamental truth to which I referred is not whether this body should be more or less "active" in relation to national governments, but that this body determines for itself how active a role it will play. Should you (and others) be successful in imposing a minimalistic role, you do so only by dent of that fundamental truth, nor would your imposition of your view on this body change that fundamental truth. The argument that the UN has no business (or for contrast, "must") legislating on a particular topic is a fallacious argument. Other than specific, well-defined exceptions, there is no restriction on what this assembly can or can't decide.

The essential nature of the NSUN is that it is a voluntary organization. You are not required to join; you are not required to stay; and, if you follow the rules, no one will force you out. You did, however, check your complete and full sovereignty at the door--full compliance to UN legislation is mandatory. Any one who can not accept that fact has the ultimate solution available to them. Always.
_______
Better proposal be worker safety regulations, and prevention of child labor abuse, or the use of slave labor, or prision labor than dictating another countries labor lawsWelcome to the General Assembly. We suggest your legation avail themselves of the plethora of information available for new members, including Passed U.N. Resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572), where you will indeed find that child Labor, slavery, and a whole host of issues have already been dealt with. Oddly enough, every single one of the issues you name had their own group arguing that it wasn't the UN's business to "dictat[e] another countries ... laws".

--L.T.

Opendia

27-07-2007, 00:29

The essential nature of the NSUN is that it is a voluntary organization. You are not required to join; you are not required to stay; and, if you follow the rules, no one will force you out. You did, however, check your complete and full sovereignty at the door--full compliance to UN legislation is mandatory. Any one who can not accept that fact has the ultimate solution available to them. Always.

While it is true that anyone can quit the UN at any time. It should not be necissary for a nation to quit the UN to because they were trying to avoid a coup of sorts. To a coporate police state this is like saying you cannot privatise prisons or hospitals or space programs to a capitalist coutry. Are you stating that certain governments shouldn't be allowed in international politics?

We suggest your legation avail themselves of the plethora of information available for new members, including Passed U.N. Resolutions, where you will indeed find that child Labor, slavery, and a whole host of issues have already been dealt with. Oddly enough, every single one of the issues you name had their own group arguing that it wasn't the UN's business to "dictat[e] another countries ... laws".

You act as though banning slavery and insuring the right to form labor unions are of equal importance. Besides I have no problem with any of those ( child Labor, slavery, etc.) issues being forced upon UN members, while each could harm a nation's economy, none of them directly took power away from the government of said nation. By forcing the right to form labor unions on certain nations, you take a signifigant amount of power away from the government of a corporate police state, and give it to the people. This may fit in just fine with your ideals, but it doesn't work well for everyone. I have no problem with giving people the right to form unions, in fact I already have done so. However unless a proposal benifits the world and allows all forms of government to remain in power I will not vote for it and I urge others to do the same.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Iamloco

27-07-2007, 00:45

The fundamental truth to which I referred is not whether this body should be more or less "active" in relation to national governments, but that this body determines for itself how active a role it will play. Should you (and others) be successful in imposing a minimalistic role, you do so only by dent of that fundamental truth, nor would your imposition of your view on this body change that fundamental truth. The argument that the UN has no business (or for contrast, "must") legislating on a particular topic is a fallacious argument. Other than specific, well-defined exceptions, there is no restriction on what this assembly can or can't decide.

I never said that the UN cant impose this law. That doesnt, however, mean that the UN should impose this law. According to the moderators or whoever decides which proposals are legal, they obviously see this proposal as legal and not in violation of the specific, well-defined (imo they need to be better-defined) exceptions you speak of. However in my interpretation of the exeption that the UN cannot forbid dictatorships this proposal is essentialy the same and thus I believe that this proposal should (not cant) not be passed and must be opposed. It is my right to vote against this proposal for these reasons and my right to explain why I oppose this.

If the UNs fundamental truth is that they can pass any law want, then they can also want to pass no laws.

The essential nature of the NSUN is that it is a voluntary organization. You are not required to join; you are not required to stay; and, if you follow the rules, no one will force you out. You did, however, check your complete and full sovereignty at the door--full compliance to UN legislation is mandatory. Any one who can not accept that fact has the ultimate solution available to them. Always.

I know where the door is, thank you for pointing that out once again. I agree that everyone in the UN has to comply with legislation once it is voted, I have never expressed that Iamloco will not comply. We are debating a proposal that is at vote and we express our opinions wether it should passed or not. If someone is against the proposal there is really no reason to say to them that they should leave (or even mentioning the option that they can leave, which really implies the same thing) the UN. People have every right to come here speak their mind and not be told to leave. Perhaps your should take your own advice. If everyone that has ever voted against an issue would be told that they can leave the UN if they don't like it, not many people would be left.

edit: I agree with you 100% even though I havent been able to word it aswell. I believe that too many people in the UN are in the category of NY times democracies or the likes and they forget to keep an open mind of other forms of government. What some nations think of a just and right doesn't mean that this is so for all countries. If governemnts have the right to makes random arrests and executions, than we really cant force them to allow unions. Follewing this logic we even could demand that all nations have a civil rights rating of at least good. (i know that last step is really not allowed by un rules, but for me the step to take from one to the other isnt significant)

Citenka

27-07-2007, 01:21

Thank you for taking away some of my concerns, Ambassador Talone, but the last part of your answer to me give the life to another question.
As was discussed earlier (perhaps you weren't present then), this resolution does not prevent a national government from legislating in the area of formation and conduct of organizations, as long as such legislation is not exclusively directed at unions.
What if some government create such restrictions on formation of all non-governmental organizations, so it will be almost impossible to create independent from the employers or government labor union? Can this resolution prevent such option?

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Opendia

27-07-2007, 01:54

I believe that too many people in the UN are in the category of NY times democracies or the likes and they forget to keep an open mind of other forms of government. What some nations think of a just and right doesn't mean that this is so for all countries.

I agree completely with Iamloco. I haven't been on that long, but I've been on long enough to realise that the people controlling the UN are very closed minded. I have read the proposal over and over, yet no matter how many times I read it I can't help but feel that this is like giving all citizens guns. It won't matter for some government types, but for those that don't even allow the police force to have guns it will take all the power away from the government and give it to the people. You may not understand this Rubina or perhaps you just don't care, but there are a lot of nations that are practically controlled by large corperations and by doing this you are basically overthrowing that kind of government. Just because you believe a certain way doesn't mean you can force everyone else to.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 02:52

A resolution of this sort basically takes away much of the power of businesses and thus, those nations who are effectively ruled by the private sector.

THIS IS THE SAME AS WEAKENING THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THUS GIVING MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

Those undemocratic states cannot effectively have their economy and government completely overhauled by the UN. Plus it is AGAINST THE UN RULES.

You are effectively banning those types of government by changing them.

Subservient Peons

27-07-2007, 03:26

I regret that I cannot support this resolution. While I agree that the rights and safety of the working population are of utmost importance, I cannot agree to forcing all UN participating nations to amend their labor laws. I find it disheartening that in order to have my voice heard on an international forum, I must also agree to completely overhaul my nations policies, amend its laws, and adjust the common practices of my country.

Udunwunnalivher

27-07-2007, 03:32

I'm not going to go into some long-winded speech.

For god's sake don't pass this resolution.

Cheers.

Gobbannium

27-07-2007, 03:36

Flibbleites

27-07-2007, 03:53

I refer you to Rights and Duties of UN States.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So you are saying the the UN can make laws in member countries?Apparently you didn't actually read Rights and Duties of UN States. If you had, you'd know that nations can pass any laws they want, so long as those laws don't contradict international law i.e. UN Resolutions.

Locks? Where do locks play into this? Is Building Mgmt getting involved in the debates? I thought they were at the picket line...

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Picket line?! There's a picket line?! Shit, I'm union, I can't cross a picket line!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 04:10

Slavery was based off of the grounds that it was a blight against a humans right to be free - this has NO such foundation, so don't even try to compare the two.

I urge all regional delegates to VOTE AGAINST, and for all UN members to VOTE AGAINST, and for UN members to tell their inactive delegates to VOTE AGAINST.

VOTE AGAINST UN Labor Relations Act
VOTE FOR Nations' Rights

Opendia

27-07-2007, 04:42

We grow somewhat weary of the accusations of forbiddance of ideology such as the honoured representative from Eastern Nobles so forcefully enunciated, which corresponds to the more reasonable expressions of fear of doomsday that other delegates have expressed. We would like to assure such nations that these fears have little foundation, and that the abolition of slavery will have caused much greater upheaval in corporate states than the formation of unions ever could.

I'm glad you're paying attention to those of us going against the proposal you clearly wish to pass. I am not trying to insult Gobbanium, but I wonder how much it's representatives could know about a coporate state when they live in a left-wing utopia. However, I will take note of all you say and remain open minded. The only thing I would like to say abuot the abolition of slavery is that not only is that no one deserves to be a slave is that while banning slavery may affect a nation's economy, it does little to affect it's control. Slaves being free doesn't mean they can take power from the government. Whereas giving people the right to form unions means that they can demand higher wages, shorter hours, better conditions, etc. This also gives them the right to strike. The ability to do those things greatly limits the power of large corporations and therefore a corporate state.

Corporate states can take a range of attitudes to their worker-citizens and still be corporate states. Some may greatly oppress their workers, and those will likely find themselves affected by the new freedoms to a greater degree than most. We note, however, that this is not introducing a new problem to such nations; were they to pay any attention to history, they should be aware that such systems are unstable, and liable to violent disintegration. Union rights significantly reduce the liklihood of violence, and in fact prolong the life-span of such societies.

It is true union rights keep people from becoming violent (usually), however in a true corporate state the poor have no money (and therefore no means to rise to power) and the rich have no desire for power (they basically run things). If the poor did manage to rise, with the condition they're in the most they could do is ask for rights that this proposal is going to give them anyway.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, some corporate states take the time and trouble to treat workers as valued members of the corporations. These nations will not be negatively affected by the addition of union rights; indeed those who do not already permit unions may well find their economy improves with the morale of their workforce!

I will not argue sometimes this is true. But sometimes nations want more than just a powerhouse economy, they want an order that can only be acheived if they ban labor unions.

The majority of corporate states of course exist between these two extremes, and will be affected appropriately. Most, we imagine, will experience a dip in their economies as the first adjustments to wage negotiation occur, but we suggest that in almost all cases this will be a very slight effect. It would after all take quite an extreme starting position and quite an extreme maintenance of anti-worker attitude for it to be even remotely likely that such a nation would be economically destroyed by the mere existence of unions.

Even so sometimesNations are looking for more than just a powerful economy. Sometimes governments are based on ideals, something the UN is not allowed to ban.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Yelda

27-07-2007, 04:59

Plus it is AGAINST THE UN RULES.
Well. Shall we get a moderator ruling then, before you embarrass yourself even further? Trust me, it isn't against the rules.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 05:08

Then let us get a moderator in here!

This cannot be allowed to pass!

Yelda

27-07-2007, 05:10

Then let us get a moderator in here!

This cannot be allowed to pass!
I'm sure one will wander by eventually.

Opendia

27-07-2007, 05:10

As I stated earlier respected representative of Yelda,

I agree completely with Iamloco. I haven't been on that long, but I've been on long enough to realise that the people controlling the UN are very closed minded. I have read the proposal over and over, yet no matter how many times I read it I can't help but feel that this is like giving all citizens guns. It won't matter for some government types, but for those that don't even allow the police force to have guns it will take all the power away from the government and give it to the people. You may not understand this Rubina or perhaps you just don't care, but there are a lot of nations that are practically controlled by large corperations and by doing this you are basically overthrowing that kind of government. Just because you believe a certain way doesn't mean you can force everyone else to.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Although this was originally stated toward Rubina it is also stated towards you and all the other authors of this proposal.

Yelda

27-07-2007, 05:42

As I stated earlier respected representative of Yelda,

Although this was originally stated toward Rubina it is also stated towards you and all the other authors of this proposal.

Hmmm. You describe me as "respected", but then say things like this:

I haven't been on that long, but I've been on long enough to realise that the people controlling the UN are very closed minded.
Closed minded? Do you have any idea how radically pro-union this Resolution might have turned out if I hadn't been willing to compromise with the other drafters, particularly Ausserland. I wanted to allow closed shops, among other things. The original drafting thread here in this forum was started on 3 July. Numerous suggestions were made by delegations from all across the political spectrum. Where were you?

I have read the proposal over and over, yet no matter how many times I read it I can't help but feel that this is like giving all citizens guns.
You understand that it would be perfectly legal to propose a resolution giving all citizens guns, right? Not that it would be likely to pass, but it would be legal.
It won't matter for some government types, but for those that don't even allow the police force to have guns it will take all the power away from the government and give it to the people.
OOC: That's just the way the game works. If the majority decides that UN nations shall allow unions, or guns, or capital punishment, or whatever..then that's the way it is. Everyone isn't going to be happy with every resolution that passes. There have been several that I disagreed with but I accepted the will of the majority. There's always the repeal process if you don't like a resolution.
You may not understand this Rubina or perhaps you just don't care, but there are a lot of nations that are practically controlled by large corperations and by doing this you are basically overthrowing that kind of government.
Back IC: Explain this further. How is requiring that unions be allowed "overthrowing that kind of government"? Furthermore, if everyone in that nation runs out and joins a union and that brings about the downfall of the government then maybe it was meant to happen, eh? Maybe such an unstable government needed to be overthrown. But really, this is silliness. I doubt this legislation is going to lead to the downfall of any existing regime.
Just because you believe a certain way doesn't mean you can force everyone else to.
I can't force you to believe a certain way, nor would I attempt to. However, if this passes I will force you to allow unions. Sorry.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 05:57

I'm sorry, but I really don't feel the need for this.

Spread the word: Vote Against.

We are coming.

The Most Glorious Hack

27-07-2007, 06:06

Then let us get a moderator in here!It's legal.

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 06:12

If you say so...

Opendia

27-07-2007, 06:19

Closed minded? Do you have any idea how radically pro-union this Resolution might have turned out if I hadn't been willing to compromise with the other drafters, particularly Ausserland. I wanted to allow closed shops, among other things. The original drafting thread here in this forum was started on 3 July. Numerous suggestions were made by delegations from all across the political spectrum. Where were you?

I find that to be a very good question. I was on vacation at the time. I appreciate the fact that you attempted to compromise with the other users. I would ask that you remeber that the post I sent you mainly constisted of a quote of a post I had written earlier. I had not intended to offend you and ask for your forgiveness. I would also like to state that in no way did i claim I was on the UN forums as much as you were. I feel pretty bad about calling you closed minded with no basis. I would like to say sorry for the misunderstanding.

You understand that it would be perfectly legal to propose a resolution giving all citizens guns, right? Not that it would be likely to pass, but it would be legal.

I do in fact understand it would be legal to propose such a thing. However I think it would clash with the ideals of many nations and could cause the downfall of several nations. I was using it as an example

OOC: That's just the way the game works. If the majority decides that UN nations shall allow unions, or guns, or capital punishment, or whatever..then that's the way it is. Everyone isn't going to be happy with every resolution that passes. There have been several that I disagreed with but I accepted the will of the majority. There's always the repeal process if you don't like a resolution.

I believe this is a good point.

Back IC: Explain this further. How is requiring that unions be allowed "overthrowing that kind of government"? Furthermore, if everyone in that nation runs out and joins a union and that brings about the downfall of the government then maybe it was meant to happen, eh? Maybe such an unstable government needed to be overthrown. But really, this is silliness. I doubt this legislation is going to lead to the downfall of any existing regime.

If people join unions they gain leverage towards corporations, right? Give us benefits or we'll strike. If corporations rule the nation people gain leverage against the government. You'll find that in a dictatorship nonviolent leverage against the government can be a very bad thing. It can't be supressed (if forced by the UN) and who says it will stop at worker benefits? If the people realise they are being ruled by major corporations (if they already haven't) they could use their leverage to veto laws or something like that. This is where my gun analogy came into play, if everyone had guns but the police didn't, how do you stop the population from staging a coup? You have to change. Radically. The UN isn't supposed to ban a type of government. If you have to change radically to avoid a coup, I'd say your govenrment has just been banned.

I can't force you to believe a certain way, nor would I attempt to. However, if this passes I will force you to allow unions. Sorry.

Actually you can't force me to allow unions. No I'm not quitting. I allowed unions the other day. I have no problem with unions. You can look at my nation, I'm not sure my beliefs are any different than yours. But while I don't have a problem with unions, I do have a problem with forcing others to change radically. Thank you for at least mentioning my post. I'm sorry it was less than polite.

The People's Republic of Opendia

The Most Glorious Hack

27-07-2007, 06:46

If you say so...I do.

More importantly, it's at vote. It can't be touched, save by an Administrator, and they refuse to deal with hair splitting debates such as this. The only time an Administrator would step in would be if, somehow, a Proposal was at vote that violated the T&C of the site (for instance, the standard example of "kill all teh jewz!").

In a way, this has de facto legality by the very nature of it being at vote. That said, I don't feel that allowing unions translates into an ideological ban (and this is coming from someone who runs a corporation dominated nation and is generally against unions in real life). Should this fail and another similar Proposal is put forward, I might entertain a legality challenge. However, it was need to be quite detailed and specific.

Regardless, that is not the situation here. Further debate on this Proposal should be on its merits (or lack thereof), and not its legality.

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 07:15

Okay.

Thank you for that more detailed explanation - that clarifies things a bit.

Felchinstein

27-07-2007, 07:57

The use of unions should be done on a voluntary basis. In my past experience, the higher ups in the union usually are in the company's pocket and padding their own, while the common working man is left unrepresented. Thus i have banned unions and all corporations are owned by the government. Shall this resolution pass and be made mandatory, i will submit my resignation to the UN.

Yelda

27-07-2007, 08:24

I would ask that you remeber that the post I sent you mainly constisted of a quote of a post I had written earlier. I had not intended to offend you and ask for your forgiveness.
OOC: Heh. It's OK, I (the person sitting here typing) wasn't offended. My character (Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú) was. He's an ass, don't take his comments personally.

If people join unions they gain leverage towards corporations, right? Give us benefits or we'll strike. If corporations rule the nation people gain leverage against the government. You'll find that in a dictatorship nonviolent leverage against the government can be a very bad thing. It can't be supressed (if forced by the UN) and who says it will stop at worker benefits? If the people realise they are being ruled by major corporations (if they already haven't) they could use their leverage to veto laws or something like that. This is where my gun analogy came into play, if everyone had guns but the police didn't, how do you stop the population from staging a coup? You have to change. Radically. The UN isn't supposed to ban a type of government. If you have to change radically to avoid a coup, I'd say your govenrment has just been banned.
We have a Furtherment of Democracy proposal category which increases political freedoms. That wouldn't be very friendly towards dictatorial regimes, would it? We have a Social Justice category which reduces income inequality and increases basic welfare. Not friendly toward pure capitalist nations. We have a Free Trade category which reduces barriers to free trade and commerce. But what about socialist governments who oppose free trade and commerce?

I agree with the no ideological bans rule, but carried to extremes it would shut down the UN part of the game. If nations could define an ideological ban as "anything that violates any of the basic tenets of my political or economic ideology in the slightest way" then what sort of resolutions would be legal?

While we're talking about it, here's the rule on ideological bans:
Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.
I really can't see how a resolution allowing unions violates that. For that matter, I don't think a resolution banning unions would violate it either.

But while I don't have a problem with unions, I do have a problem with forcing others to change radically.
Maybe you should check out the National Sovereignty Organization (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx).

Badger_89

27-07-2007, 15:06

Cookesland

27-07-2007, 15:39

fellow nations if this motion passes you will be allowing a two tier workforce in your countries.
why should the police,army and nurses etc be stopped from going on strike. All workers should have the same rights no matter what section of society they work for.
These laws can only create division and also allow your government to impose working conditions on certain sections of society without the people affected having any sort of defense against it.

I refer you to the third clause of this resolution, section B

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

If the national goverment didn't have the right to exempt that right from Clause Two think of all the trouble it would cause. Take a step on the What-If-inator and think if there were Doctors and Nurses on strike and a hurricane struck. What happens to all the people injured or sick?

UN Building Mgmt. is on strike? That would explain why the 18th floor bathroom keeps flooding the storage closet...

Anyways, Cookesland UN Mission thinks this is a very well written and well reasoned proposal and votes FOR.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Minilla Island

27-07-2007, 17:07

Win, lose or draw, I can safely say Minilla Island votes "no", and it shall remain "no". The UN does NOT have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of its member nations. If you want to do it as an encouragement to allow unions in its member nations, thats fine. To REQUIRE it is another thing.
If it passes, it will not be enforced. If you try to force my country to do so, you had better have troops prepared to die for this nonsense.

In the name of HRH, King Raymond I
Right Hon. Bertram Pinkston
United Nations Ambassador
Republic of Minilla Island

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 17:21

There may be a mass resignation if this passes...

Plutoni

27-07-2007, 17:25

The UN does NOT have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of its member nations.Then what does it have the right to do?If you try to force my country to do so, you had better have troops prepared to die for this nonsense.Not quite the case.

-the Plutonian ambassador, who supports the resolution

Minilla Island

27-07-2007, 17:41

Then what does it have the right to do?

It has the right to encourage member nations to do certain things.

"The UN urges its member states to give workers rights to form Unions." or "The United Nations encourages member states to allow workers to form unions." It does NOT, however, have the right to say "Member states MUST allow workers to form unions." The UN exists only to encourage World peace, not to be involved in every internal issue that a nation has. Now, if we are talking about things like rogue states harboring missles or terrorists, or things like genocide, without question The UN has a DUTY to get involved with THAT issue only. But, it does NOT have the right to interfere in a country's peaceful internal economy. Even the REAL UN is not that arrogant to do this.

In the name of HRH, King Raymond I
Bertram Pinkston
UN Ambassador
Republic of Minilla Island

Opendia

27-07-2007, 17:46

-the Plutonian ambassador, who supports the resolution

Why do you support this resolution? I have no problem with many (I dislike the idea of allowing heads of corporations in unions as they have no reason to complain) of the ideas in this resolution, but I am strongly against pushing it upon other nations.

THe people's Republic of Opendia

Zwangzug

27-07-2007, 17:48

OOC: (directed at Minilla Island)

The NationStates UN doesn't follow the same rules as the Real Life UN. All of its resolutions must mandate something.

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

IC:
Why do you support this resolution? I have no problem with many (I dislike the idea of allowing heads of corporations in unions as they have no reason to complain) ideas in this resolution, but I am strongly against pushing it upon other nations.

THe people's Republic of OpendiaI believe that the right to unionize is sufficiently important that it should be guaranteed to the peoples of UN member nations. As such, I support this proposal.

-the Plutonian ambassador

St Edmundan Antarctic

27-07-2007, 17:48

And the UN has the right to force anything upon all member nations. That's why it's the UN. If you don't like, the exit is to your left.

"No: It has the power to do so, I agree, but some of us happen to recognise that there is a significant difference in meaning between the terms 'power' and 'right'.
You seem to be claiming that all nations who want to organise international cooperation about anything (even if only for a limited range of topics) on the scale that the UN makes possible should therefore have to accept every bloody proposal that comes to vote automatically, without quibbling about the terms of these, instead of being allowed to argue against some proposals passing and only having to accept those of them that have actually managed to get passed..." *Sigh* "I rather hoped that the departure of Forgottenlord's representatives from these councils had meant we'd heard the last of that arrogantly Interational-Federalist attitude...
For what it's worth, by the way, my own nation's laws on this subject are already generous enough that this proposal wouldn't actually require us to make any changes... but we try to respect the fact that the UN's member-nations differ widely in their natures, and therefore do not believe that a topic such as this -- one for which any individual national government's decisions would be highly unlikely to have any direct effects on any other nations -- is a desirable subject for international compulsion. The treaty that all of our nations signed when we joined this organisation guarantees that its resolutions will not be allowed to dictate the nature of our national governments: That being the case, my government regards any attempt by the UN to tell those same governments how they must handle any lesser aspect of their nations' internal affairs as decidedly and offensively presumptuous.
And there are, after all, many important matters that have genuinely trans-national effects -- such as extradition, for example, or the suppresion of international piracy, or various aspects of international trade -- upon which this Assembly could less annoyingly and more usefully spend its time."

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

Opendia

27-07-2007, 17:57

I would have voted for this proposal had it been labled as "mild" and said something like reccomends that nations have unions or even strongly urges. According to the rules such a thing is fine.
Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine.

The mysteriously unnamed UN representative of ...
The People's Republic of Opendia

Yelda

27-07-2007, 18:04

There may be a mass resignation if this passes...
*rolls eyes*

Really? Will it be like the mass resignations when "The Rights of Labor Unions" passed, or more like the ones when "The Right to Form Unions" passed?

You understand, don't you, that for most of the history of NS there has been a resolution in place allowing unions? "The Rights of Labor Unions" was passed 24 Nov 2003. It was then repealed on 30 Jan 2006. Then on 17 Mar 2006, "The Right to Form Unions" was passed. It remained in effect until 29 Jun 2007.

Stop this melodrama. There aren't going to be any mass resignations.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Akimonad

27-07-2007, 18:07

The UN does NOT have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of its member nations.

Umm, yes, it does. That's what the UN does: passes legislation affecting all member nations.

If it passes, it will not be enforced. If you try to force my country to do so, you had better have troops prepared to die for this nonsense.

OOC: Heh-heh. Yes it will be enforced, whether you like it or not. It's coded into the game.

There may be a mass resignation if this passes...

IC: You will not be missed, I assure you.

"No: It has the power to do so, I agree, but some of us happen to recognise that there is a significant difference in meaning between the terms 'power' and 'right'.

Sure, but may would claim that it's the UN's obligation to pass laws.

You seem to be claiming that all nations who want to organise international cooperation about anything (even if only for a limited range of topics) on the scale that the UN makes possible should therefore have to accept every bloody proposal that comes to vote automatically, without quibbling about the terms of these,

Heh. Are you kidding? That's all I do! I hate a lot of the proposals that come to vote! And I'm like one of the more prominent micromanagers of language, too!

OOC: You must have no idea of my voting tendencies.

**********
IC: I refuse to respect any representatives who think they can try and not comply.

If you're in the UN, you comply. There is no question.

Don't like it? Leave.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Retired WerePenguins

27-07-2007, 18:15

There may be a mass resignation if this passes...

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/bouncefaerie111x171.gif I bagsy their offices! http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/bouncefaerie111x171.gif

You do realize that by then the damage will already be done to your nations. :D

Yelda

27-07-2007, 18:15

Wall of text.

I'm not about to try reading all of that mess. You understand that Aki isn't exactly an IntFed, don't you?

Yelda

27-07-2007, 18:17

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/bouncefaerie111x171.gif
I approve of this image.

Minilla Island

27-07-2007, 18:25

If we see that this nonsense will pass, Minilla Island WILL be out the door. It is clear that THIS UN is run by children, not clear thinking adults.

Ausserland

27-07-2007, 18:27

The new representative of Minilla Island is certainly entitled to his opinion of what the UN's role and scope of activity should be. We all are, and many of us often disagree on just what those should be. But if we understand his comments correctly, we're afraid his time in this organization will prove extremely frustrating.

It has the right to encourage member nations to do certain things.

Is the Ambassador suggesting that this is all the UN should do? If so, the only category of resolution we would need is Mild. Forget the Strong and Significant ones. We'd be limited to passing feel-good fluff with no real effect and no real reason for bothering. Quite obviously, the passage of many resolutions which do far more than "encourage" shows that most members of this organization disagree.

The UN exists only to encourage World peace, not to be involved in every internal issue that a nation has.

Has the Ambassador had a chance to review the list of existing UN resolutions? If, as he says, the UN "exists only to encourage World Peace", why do we find so many resolutions which clearly have nothing to do with that? Logic tells us that most members of the UN have a far different view of its purpose.

We welcome the Ambassador's participation here. He states his views well, even if we disagree with them. And, as we said, he has every right to his opinion. But we'd suggest that he should be prepared for considerable disappointment as the majority of members dismiss such extreme and unrealistic arguments.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Opendia

27-07-2007, 18:29

If you're in the UN, you comply. There is no question.

Don't like it? Leave.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

First off the fourth wall isn't meant to be broken :headbang: (even though I dislike smilies the wall doesn't break) So in regard to an above statement, what coding? And a game? We are here to discuss politics, not computer games.
Besides that Dr. Hodz I'd like to say that while it is true that we must comply to resolutions with signifigant strength that doesn't mean you should tell anyone that disagrees with you to leave.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Minilla Island

27-07-2007, 18:37

I am going OOC for this:

How is what I said "Extreme"? That is the POINT of the UN. The UN, in its connotation, was NEVER meant to be a "World Government". It was created to foster peace and understanding between nations, not to DICTATE to nations. Even today, what does it really do? It pushes "Look, we did something today" resolutions with no real teeth. It comes in when the dust has settled. What happens when that dust kicks back up? They run out of harms way.

The UN that was created for this games is incredibly flawed. It does not allow for "free will" of nations. It is that "free will" that makes a nation a nation. At least in the region I am in (Rineu) they allow for "free will". And, someone who says they will not respect my "nation" who exercises "free will" has no concept of what international relations are, nor do those people deserve any respect from right-thinking people.

Peace,
Ray C.

Cookesland

27-07-2007, 18:40

If we see that this nonsense will pass, Minilla Island WILL be out the door. It is clear that THIS UN is run by children, not clear thinking adults.

I do believe you're entitled to your own opinion of this issue, but don't you think you're over reacting just a little bit?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Minilla Island

27-07-2007, 18:46

I do believe you're entitled to your own opinion of this issue, but don't you think you're over reacting just a little bit?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

No, I just feel that this is a violation of my nations "free will"

Opendia

27-07-2007, 18:48

I do believe you're entitled to your own opinion of this issue, but don't you think you're over reacting just a little bit?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Minilla Island's representative is very concerned about the effect that this resolution could have on a corporate stae. That is why he is prepared to leave the UN.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Akimonad

27-07-2007, 18:59

If we see that this nonsense will pass, Minilla Island WILL be out the door. It is clear that THIS UN is run by children, not clear thinking adults.

Perhaps you should speak for yourself.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

First off the fourth wall isn't meant to be broken (even though I dislike smilies the wall doesn't break) So in regard to an above statement, what coding? And a game? We are here to discuss politics, not computer games.
Besides that Dr. Hodz I'd like to say that while it is true that we must comply to resolutions with signifigant strength that doesn't mean you should tell anyone that disagrees with you to leave.

The People's Republic of Opendia

OOC: Do not lecture me! Did you miss the part that says "OOC:"? That means "out of character". Now respond.\

I'm not about to try reading all of that mess. You understand that Aki isn't exactly an IntFed, don't you?

You're better off not reading it, as I didn't understand it anyway.

And St. Ed, Yelda's right. There's a reason why "NSO" is in my signature.

Akimonad

27-07-2007, 19:03

Minilla Island's representative is very concerned about the effect that this resolution could have on a corporate state. That is why he is prepared to leave the UN.

The People's Republic of Opendia

We're a corporate state, and we're voting for.

Why? Because you have to choices:

1) Vote for, and be content that, since you had to have a Union resolution passed, you picked the least intrusive one.

2) Abstain or vote against, and then complain when a more intrusive union resolution passes.

The fact stands: This is the best resolution on unions you're likely to get. So vote for it, and stop whining.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Cookesland

27-07-2007, 19:06

Minilla Island's representative is very concerned about the effect that this resolution could have on a corporate stae. That is why he is prepared to leave the UN.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Then i would redirect him to this statement from the Honorable Ambassador from Gobbannium:

We grow somewhat weary of the accusations of forbiddance of ideology such as the honoured representative from Eastern Nobles so forcefully enunciated, which corresponds to the more reasonable expressions of fear of doomsday that other delegates have expressed. We would like to assure such nations that these fears have little foundation, and that the abolition of slavery will have caused much greater upheaval in corporate states than the formation of unions ever could.

Corporate states can take a range of attitudes to their worker-citizens and still be corporate states. Some may greatly oppress their workers, and those will likely find themselves affected by the new freedoms to a greater degree than most. We note, however, that this is not introducing a new problem to such nations; were they to pay any attention to history, they should be aware that such systems are unstable, and liable to violent disintegration. Union rights significantly reduce the liklihood of violence, and in fact prolong the life-span of such societies.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, some corporate states take the time and trouble to treat workers as valued members of the corporations. These nations will not be negatively affected by the addition of union rights; indeed those who do not already permit unions may well find their economy improves with the morale of their workforce!

The majority of corporate states of course exist between these two extremes, and will be affected appropriately. Most, we imagine, will experience a dip in their economies as the first adjustments to wage negotiation occur, but we suggest that in almost all cases this will be a very slight effect. It would after all take quite an extreme starting position and quite an extreme maintenance of anti-worker attitude for it to be even remotely likely that such a nation would be economically destroyed by the mere existence of unions.

Unions and Corporate States can Coexist.

- R.Y.

Opendia

27-07-2007, 19:31

OOC: Sorry about the statement I made earlier, I couldn't remember if you had posted that statement in or out of character. Plus I haven't been on this forum a lot, I thought it had to do something with out of character but I wasn't sure.
IC: I would prefer an even less intrusive union act. Besides I really don't see the need for one. Unions aren't even considered a basic human right. John Locke considered life, liberty, and property to be the 3 basic human rights. (Someone said Locke didn't exist in NS but many other things, such as Catholics, atheists, Harry Potter, the X-files do so for all intents and purposes he does) Unions fit under neither life, liberty nor do they fit under property. As such this resolution seems kind of pointless anyway. Shouldn't the UN be doing something that does fit under that jurisdiction, like protecting minorities, or protecting majorities, insuring some government protection (a country should at least have some kind of police force), and preventing genocide. We should drop "because we can" issues like these and move on to more important ones. I voted for the last issue. I didn't like it at first, but it seemed a lot more important than this one. We should do more issues like that one. If no one can think of any issues for a while than so be it. At least we won't end up with any more issues like this one.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Opendia

27-07-2007, 19:41

I am glad you brought that up R.Y. I wrote a detailed response to that post the other day.
I'm glad you're paying attention to those of us going against the proposal you clearly wish to pass. I am not trying to insult Gobbanium, but I wonder how much it's representatives could know about a coporate state when they live in a left-wing utopia. However, I will take note of all you say and remain open minded. The only thing I would like to say abuot the abolition of slavery is that not only is that no one deserves to be a slave is that while banning slavery may affect a nation's economy, it does little to affect it's control. Slaves being free doesn't mean they can take power from the government. Whereas giving people the right to form unions means that they can demand higher wages, shorter hours, better conditions, etc. This also gives them the right to strike. The ability to do those things greatly limits the power of large corporations and therefore a corporate state.

It is true union rights keep people from becoming violent (usually), however in a true corporate state the poor have no money (and therefore no means to rise to power) and the rich have no desire for power (they basically run things). If the poor did manage to rise, with the condition they're in the most they could do is ask for rights that this proposal is going to give them anyway.

I will not argue sometimes this is true. But sometimes nations want more than just a powerhouse economy, they want an order that can only be acheived if they ban labor unions.

Even so sometimes nations are looking for more than just a powerful economy. Sometimes governments are based on ideals, something the UN is not allowed to ban.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Gobbannium

27-07-2007, 20:22

I'm glad you're paying attention to those of us going against the proposal you clearly wish to pass. I am not trying to insult Gobbanium, but I wonder how much it's representatives could know about a coporate state when they live in a left-wing utopia.
We freely admit to not being experts on economics and commercial interactions, but we take considerable comfort from the fact that Dr Hodz, who is, has not seen fit to correct our statements. Further, we do count ourselves expert in the matter of debating, and observe that not once have your engaged in rational argument to justify your doomsday scenarios.

However, I will take note of all you say and remain open minded.
Please excuse the outbreak of giggling. Our Permanant Undersecretary appears to have been spending too much time in the Stranger's Bar of late.

The only thing I would like to say abuot the abolition of slavery is that not only is that no one deserves to be a slave is that while banning slavery may affect a nation's economy, it does little to affect it's control. Slaves being free doesn't mean they can take power from the government.

This is manifestly untrue. A nation with a slave economy that is deprived of those slaves loses a great deal of control, possibly totally, according to its level of dependency on slavery. The effect of mass resources simply becoming unavailable should not be underestimated. The slaves may not themselves take power from the government, but such power could easily cease to exist. We suggest that a study of the fictional example of Ancient Rome may prove enlightening.

Whereas giving people the right to form unions means that they can demand higher wages, shorter hours, better conditions, etc. This also gives them the right to strike. The ability to do those things greatly limits the power of large corporations and therefore a corporate state.
Indeed. We consider some of those limitations to be highly desirable. We repeat, however, that none of those limitations prevent a corportate state or a corporation from functioning, or indeed from functioning well. We also note that the proposal makes considerable effort to forbid the sorts of excess that you seem to envision through purely social pressures.

It is true union rights keep people from becoming violent (usually), however in a true corporate state the poor have no money (and therefore no means to rise to power) and the rich have no desire for power (they basically run things). If the poor did manage to rise, with the condition they're in the most they could do is ask for rights that this proposal is going to give them anyway.
Your argument seems confused, ambassador. You equate money with power or the ability to act, a clear fallacy, compound this with a further equation with intelligence, a similar equation of action and legality, and then dismissively suggest that the rights enshrined in this proposal that you have been arguing so vehemently against are so minimal as to be ignorable. We genuinely fear for the stability of a country run under such an attitude.

I will not argue sometimes this is true. But sometimes nations want more than just a powerhouse economy, they want an order that can only be acheived if they ban labor unions.
No, they want an order that they perceive can only be achieved if they ban labour unions. We believe our argument also demonstrates why that perception is flawed.

Even so sometimesNations are looking for more than just a powerful economy. Sometimes governments are based on ideals, something the UN is not allowed to ban.
We can only repeat that this proposal does no such thing.

I would prefer an even less intrusive union act. Besides I really don't see the need for one. Unions aren't even considered a basic human right. John Locke considered life, liberty, and property to be the 3 basic human rights. (Someone said Locke didn't exist in NS but many other things, such as Catholics, atheists, Harry Potter, the X-files do so for all intents and purposes he does) Unions fit under neither life, liberty nor do they fit under property.

We thank the ambassador for drawing the philosopher John Locke to the attention of this body. We confess that we had become somewhat confused as to why delegates were referring to the comic genius of the Locke brothers, Yale, Mortice and Chubb.

We must assure the ambassador that as we see it, unions most definitely come under the heading of liberty. The assurance of fair treatment in employment is surely a contributory factor to personal liberty.

As such this resolution seems kind of pointless anyway. Shouldn't the UN be doing something that does fit under that jurisdiction, like protecting minorities, or protecting majorities, insuring some government protection (a country should at least have some kind of police force), and preventing genocide. We should drop "because we can" issues like these and move on to more important ones. I voted for the last issue. I didn't like it at first, but it seemed a lot more important than this one. We should do more issues like that one. If no one can think of any issues for a while than so be it. At least we won't end up with any more issues like this one.
The UN does. And does. And doesn't appear to have anything more 'serious' (and we use the term excessively loosely) in mind at present, given the utter lack of quorate proposals. We invite the ambassador to turn this misdirection into a reality by writing such a proposal, though we feel bound to warn him that the chances are that at least one nation will consider whatever proposal he comes up with as a matter unsuitable for UN regulation. In the mean time this is an argument that is dead before it has even started; this proposal is "at vote." You may vote for or against, or abstain, but you may not drop the issue.

We cannot help but feel that the honoured ambassador is attempting to have it both ways here. Either this proposal is so strong as to undermine entire ideologies, or it is so slight as to be unworthy of this assembly's attention. We cannot imagine a proposal that manages to be both at once, let alone this proposal which is, in our opinion, neither. This smacks somewhat of an ideological objection casting around for logic to back it up, and suggest that perhaps a more ordered approach might allow for better debate.

Mixolidian

27-07-2007, 20:31

This is a good resoulution, I'm sure there was one like this before that got passed and then somebody decided to have it repealed, so I'm glad it's back we need trade unions.

Rubina

27-07-2007, 20:54

While it is true that anyone can quit the UN at any time. It should not be necissary for a nation to quit the UN to because they were trying to avoid a coup of sorts.A coup? Were it so, everyone would be writing resolutions and not bothering with insurrections and invasions. We suggest that you overstate the power of this single resolution. To a coporate police state this is like saying you cannot privatise prisons or hospitals or space programs to a capitalist coutry. Are you stating that certain governments shouldn't be allowed in international politics?Certainly not. We believe it important that nations of all kinds come together and learn from each other. But every nation which joins this body must acknowledge that the UN has the right to and will at some time make decisions that they aren't going to agree with. Rubinan society is quite libertine and we chafe under some of the more conservative moral decency provisions this body has passed. We also evince a distaste for free trade and view most of the trade and commerce legislation here with a jaundiced eye. We continue to believe, however, that membership in the UN overrides such impositions.

You act as though banning slavery and insuring the right to form labor unions are of equal importance. Besides I have no problem with any of thoseNo, they aren't equal and we apologize if that was the impression given. The delegate from Gizico maintained that the UN should be working on resolutions concerning slavery (and child labor, et al.) instead of labor relations. We were merely pointing out that their suggested concerns had already been addressed.

We note, however, your willingness to impose on others your issues of importance. Iamloco does the same, being quite willing to impose freemarket capitalist ideals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12717643&postcount=48) on everyone regardless of their economic systems or technological development, yet playing the "weak UN" card when it suits them. All of which makes the 'ur in my nation banning my ideology' argument hypocritical and tiresome.

Sometimes governments are based on ideals, something the UN is not allowed to ban.Incorrect. The UN is not allowed to ban ideologies. Ideals ("Slavery is good.!!," for a ludicrous example) are fair game.
__________
I never said that the UN cant impose this law.
... We are debating a proposal that is at vote ... If everyone that has ever voted against an issue would be told that they can leave the UN if they don't like it, not many people would be left.No, you questioned whether the UN has the right to do so. You just didn't like the answer.

Other's may be debating the resolution at vote, you seem to be debating the nature and role of the UN itself. Which means it must be a pretty damn good resolution for the nays to have nothing which to really object.

What if some government create such restrictions on formation of all non-governmental organizations, so it will be almost impossible to create independent from the employers or government labor union? Can this resolution prevent such option?It's our understanding that such legislation (even though not exclusive to unions) that had the effect of banning independent unions would be illegal under article 1 of the resolution.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Opendia

27-07-2007, 21:03

This is manifestly untrue. A nation with a slave economy that is deprived of those slaves loses a great deal of control, possibly totally, according to its level of dependency on slavery. The effect of mass resources simply becoming unavailable should not be underestimated. The slaves may not themselves take power from the government, but such power could easily cease to exist. We suggest that a study of the fictional example of Ancient Rome may prove enlightening.

I find it interesting that you mention Ancient Rome. Mainly because the fall of Rome was not attributed to the loss of slaves, as much as the loss of military control. Once generals took greater control of their armies it allowed them to overthrow the republic, which although was generally fair ruling was large and slow to act. Take note of other examples of this happening Maxemilian Robespierre (no clue on how to spell his name), Napolean Bonaparte, and what almost happened with George Washington. None of these other examples are attributed to slave labor. The north beat the south in the american civil war despite the fact that the south had slaves.

Indeed. We consider some of those limitations to be highly desirable. We repeat, however, that none of those limitations prevent a corportate state or a corporation from functioning, or indeed from functioning well. We also note that the proposal makes considerable effort to forbid the sorts of excess that you seem to envision through purely social pressures.

I find many of them to be desirable also for myself. Except for the clause that says leaders of corporations are allowed to be in unions, I recently banned that, it doesn't seem fair)

Your argument seems confused, ambassador. You equate money with power or the ability to act, a clear fallacy, compound this with a further equation with intelligence, a similar equation of action and legality, and then dismissively suggest that the rights enshrined in this proposal that you have been arguing so vehemently against are so minimal as to be ignorable. We genuinely fear for the stability of a country run under such an attitude.

Back to the american civil war. The south had some intellegant leaders. What they didn't have were resources. They had very few ways to buy/manufacture weapons and supplies. There are not many real examples of a well armed force losing to a poorly armed force. You could cite games. A superior force loses to pockets of poorly armed resistance in Half-Life 2.

No, they want an order that they perceive can only be achieved if they ban labour unions. We believe our argument also demonstrates why that perception is flawed..

Haven't you heard of the illusion of quality?

We thank the ambassador for drawing the philosopher John Locke to the attention of this body. We confess that we had become somewhat confused as to why delegates were referring to the comic genius of the Locke brothers, Yale, Mortice and Chubb.

We must assure the ambassador that as we see it, unions most definitely come under the heading of liberty. The assurance of fair treatment in employment is surely a contributory factor to personal liberty.

Adam Smith believed the government should stay out of the economy and unions would be a violation of liberty in his opinion.

We cannot help but feel that the honoured ambassador is attempting to have it both ways here. Either this proposal is so strong as to undermine entire ideologies, or it is so slight as to be unworthy of this assembly's attention. We cannot imagine a proposal that manages to be both at once, let alone this proposal which is, in our opinion, neither. This smacks somewhat of an ideological objection casting around for logic to back it up, and suggest that perhaps a more ordered approach might allow for better debate.

Depending on what kind of nation you represent it is both.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Minilla Island

27-07-2007, 22:05

OOC: Do not lecture me! Did you miss the part that says "OOC:"? That means "out of character". Now respond.

OOC: OK, I will. We all saw your OOC. You meant it as an OOC. You believe as a "Father knows best" nation that you can do anything without answering to anyone. If that is good for your state, fine. Have fun. But, you CANNOT and WILL NOT dictate to mine.

Iamloco

27-07-2007, 22:24

No, you questioned whether the UN has the right to do so. You just didn't like the answer.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I can question wether the UN has the right to do so IC without saying that the UN doesnt have the right to do OOC. The difference between the two is: in the first one I urge people to vote against, in the second one the lmoderators should forbid the proposal. I have never asked a moderator to act here.

However I must admit that I wouldnt object if it was illagal OOC. But because I am no moderator I don't have any voting right upon this and thus my opinion on the subject is hardly important. I do have the right to oppose the proposal IC and since I can vote here my opinion matters (even if its just a little).

Eastern Noble

27-07-2007, 22:56

Twafflonia

27-07-2007, 23:53

I'm sorry if I missed it amongst the back comments, but what distinguishes a legally authorized strike? Is it merely a strike in which the government does not step in to say that it is harmful (as in articles 3 and 4)? The term "authorized" suggests a more active (that is, less passive) legal process for the authorization of Unions.

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.

This would require special legislation be passed in UN member nations with a minimum wage, as in many such nations an employer cannot employ people without paying them wages.

Furthermore, I'm not certain I understand the point of this: employers must continue to employ the striking employees but needn't pay them... does that mean that the employers must continue providing non-wage benefits associated with employment if such exist (such as insurance, credit union membership, a reserved parking place, or in some cases food and housing)?

Can an employer demote an employee for participating in a strike, such that--although not fired--if the strike ends without a result for the union members that would improve wages--the employee (who can't be fired) could have a pay reduction as a sort of punishment for participation in the strike?

At the moment I'm voting against this proposal. For the above reasons and because I feel an employer ought to be able to fire someone who refuses to work for them. It seems elementary.

Akimonad

28-07-2007, 01:45

The only reason TO stay in after such a proposal has passed is to ensure that the UN is not taken over by these forceful minded socialists (and thats what the majority of you are... or just ignorant):upyours:

Heh. That's funny, provided you're kidding.

If you're not kidding, than you had better not be calling my socialist.

OOC: Lose the smileys. Your credibility drops whenever you use them.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

28-07-2007, 01:58

You may not understand this Rubina or perhaps you just don't care, but there are a lot of nations that are practically controlled by large corporations...Is someone talking about us?

We appreciate the Opendian representative's concern for our commercial sponsors, but he need not worry: our sponsors have just sent the mission a notice wherein they insist that this-- *ahem!* [reading off the communique:] "detestable knee fall to revolutionary socialism" will not in any way result in the relinquishment of their iron grip on our nation or its government. In fact, they are so assured by this proposal's many allowances for restricting union and striking rights, they are allowing us to abstain on this motion, instead of opposing it. I think one of them might be having an affair with a Rubinan. Or one of them really short girls. Whatever, that's our position.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Citenka

28-07-2007, 02:08

It's our understanding that such legislation (even though not exclusive to unions) that had the effect of banning independent unions would be illegal under article 1 of the resolution.
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.
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with you here. Article 1 only says that workers have the right to join one of the existing unions or create a new one. It doesn’t say that government can’t create regulations, which will make independence of existing or newly created labor unions almost impossible.
Furthermore, I'm not certain I understand the point of this: employers must continue to employ the striking employees but needn't pay them... does that mean that the employers must continue providing non-wage benefits associated with employment if such exist (such as insurance, credit union membership, a reserved parking place, or in some cases food and housing)?
This is also very interesting question. Resolution doesn’t say anything about such benefits.
Can an employer demote an employee for participating in a strike, such that--although not fired--if the strike ends without a result for the union members that would improve wages--the employee (who can't be fired) could have a pay reduction as a sort of punishment for participation in the strike?
If this is really possible, then “UN Labor Relation Act” can actually work like a blocker for future resolutions that will truly protect rights of the workers!

I start to feel really bad about this resolution, but my government supports it anyway.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Ausserland

28-07-2007, 02:26

We'd like to thank the representative of Twafflonia for raising these concerns here so we could respond to them, and -- unlike some of the other opponents of the resolution -- doing so in a polite and reasonable manner.

I'm sorry if I missed it amongst the back comments, but what distinguishes a legally authorized strike? Is it merely a strike in which the government does not step in to say that it is harmful (as in articles 3 and 4)? The term "authorized" suggests a more active (that is, less passive) legal process for the authorization of Unions.

A legally authorized strike is one that has been authorized by a union (Sec. 3a) and does not violate the provisions of this resolution or national law.

This would require special legislation be passed in UN member nations with a minimum wage, as in many such nations an employer cannot employ people without paying them wages.

If this resolution passes, any national laws which required payment of striking workers would be voided.

Furthermore, I'm not certain I understand the point of this: employers must continue to employ the striking employees but needn't pay them... does that mean that the employers must continue providing non-wage benefits associated with employment if such exist (such as insurance, credit union membership, a reserved parking place, or in some cases food and housing)?

No, it does not. The resolution says nothing about non-wage benefits, therefore, it doesn't require that they continue during a strike. National law may require it -- especially in the case of food, housing, and perhaps medical care -- but the resolution does not.

Can an employer demote an employee for participating in a strike, such that--although not fired--if the strike ends without a result for the union members that would improve wages--the employee (who can't be fired) could have a pay reduction as a sort of punishment for participation in the strike?

If we were to do this all over again (which we'd do right after we grew our third and fourth heads), we'd probably change the wording to include a prohibition on such a thing. We honestly never thought of it. Two alternatives to make up for our shortcoming: national law could take care of the matter, or prohibiting retributive acts could be a matter for inclusion in the union contract.

At the moment I'm voting against this proposal. For the above reasons and because I feel an employer ought to be able to fire someone who refuses to work for them. It seems elementary.

We would agree if we coud believe that all employers were fair, honest, and had the best interests of their workers at heart. Unfortunately, we believe that history shows that the ability to unionize and to take job actions are necessary methods of promoting fair treatment of workers and allowing them to at least partially counterbalance the otherwise almost complete power the employer has over them. We hope the honorable representative will reconsider his vote.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Citenka

28-07-2007, 04:10

If we were to do this all over again (which we'd do right after we grew our third and fourth heads), we'd probably change the wording to include a prohibition on such a thing. We honestly never thought of it. Two alternatives to make up for our shortcoming: national law could take care of the matter, or prohibiting retributive acts could be a matter for inclusion in the union contract.
If government gives such protection to the workers, then it is already protect their right to form unions. And without protection from the government Article 2b is useless. If union can include this in contract then workers will be fine without it. And if they cannot, then it will not save workers from the revenge of employers.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Flibbleites

28-07-2007, 04:26

*rolls eyes*

Really? Will it be like the mass resignations when "The Rights of Labor Unions" passed, or more like the ones when "The Right to Form Unions" passed?

You understand, don't you, that for most of the history of NS there has been a resolution in place allowing unions? "The Rights of Labor Unions" was passed 24 Nov 2003. It was then repealed on 30 Jan 2006. Then on 17 Mar 2006, "The Right to Form Unions" was passed. It remained in effect until 29 Jun 2007.

Stop this melodrama. There aren't going to be any mass resignations.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Ambassador Spot, ur, Sprot, um, Sport. Heck with it, ole' What's-there-name from Yelda. Is quite correct, every time a resolution about any "hot button" issue (i.e. unions, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, etc.) passes there is threats of mass resignations. Guess what, it's never happened.
If we see that this nonsense will pass, Minilla Island WILL be out the door. It is clear that THIS UN is run by children, not clear thinking adults.

You know, there are times when I don't like what the UN passes. When that happens, I don't leave, I stay and fight for what I believe. It's a shame that not everyone has the balls to do likewise.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Minilla Island

28-07-2007, 05:28

You know, there are times when I don't like what the UN passes. When that happens, I don't leave, I stay and fight for what I believe. It's a shame that not everyone has the balls to do likewise.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'd love to stay and fight. Believe me. However, I am not going to be micromanaged by a bunch of pinkish bootlickers to the point where my nations economy collapses.

I already have serious labor problems in my nation. Their are strikes on a daily basis, and my economy is trying to take off. If I give these thugs anymore ammunition, my economy will completely collapse. This bill will destroy my country's economy for what? For some nation that sponsors this wealth-redistribution nonsense to get a Minilla Island company? Or, worse, a non-aligned country, who does NOT have to abide by the rules of this body getting that same corporation. Heck, any country with a strong economy would be insane to vote for it. We all know the truth: Labor Unions drive up the cost of doing business within the UN.

Minilla Island urges for a "no" vote.

Regards,
HRH, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Defender of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, Ruler of all the birds in the Air and all the Fish in the Sea, Protector and Visionite of our Children , and Protector of the Legacies of our Nations Ancestors, King Raymond I
Minilla Island

Shazbotdom

28-07-2007, 05:42

"As a strong supporter of National Soverignty and Indiviual Soverinty, we feel that this will help the people of the world to not be pushed around by big corporations. Although it may hurt said corporations for their 'bottom line' profits for a few months, after that it will help them get better profits by their employees being happier with their jobs and thus, doing a better job with their desired field.

We don't see why the Nation of Minilla Island feels that this legislation will hurt their nation more than help it. As with more profits over a period of several years, their budgets, imports, exports, GDP, GDP Per Capita, and other such important items will increase, causing their nation to have better services such as Healthcare, Education and other things. That will make their nation not only healthier, but smarter in the long run.

The Shazbotdom Empire will vote Aye for this resolution, and encourages other nations of the world to vote in favor of this extremely well thought out piece of legislation."

Mr. Kennith Rudenbaker
Newly Appointed
Shazbotdom Representitive to the United Nations.

Ausserland

28-07-2007, 05:43

If government gives such protection to the workers, then it is already protect their right to form unions. And without protection from the government Article 2b is useless. If union can include this in contract then workers will be fine without it. And if they cannot, then it will not save workers from the revenge of employers.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

We've already admitted an oversight on our part. But to say it makes Article 2b useless is ridiculous. Article 2b provides protection against one way -- the most severe and most likely way -- an employer would take punitive action against strikers. Yes, if unions can include this in contracts, it will take care of the situation. And the main purpose of this resolution is to ensure that unions can exist if the workers choose to form and join them.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Yelda

28-07-2007, 05:55

Can an employer demote an employee for participating in a strike, such that--although not fired--if the strike ends without a result for the union members that would improve wages--the employee (who can't be fired) could have a pay reduction as a sort of punishment for participation in the strike?

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.

I guess they could demote everyone, but they couldn't demote just the union members simply because they were union members and had participated in a strike.

Gobbannium

28-07-2007, 05:55

I find it interesting that you mention Ancient Rome. Mainly because the fall of Rome was not attributed to the loss of slaves, as much as the loss of military control.
We advocated a study of Ancient Rome, not a redundant repetition of an irrelevant truth. The fall of Rome was not attributed to the loss of slaves at all, largely because there was no great sudden loss of slaves. It does however provides a well-documented example of a slave-based society, one in which the degree of reliance of the societal infrastructure on slave labour is clear, and the catastrophic effect of the removal of such can be well considered.

I find many of them to be desirable also for myself. Except for the clause that says leaders of corporations are allowed to be in unions, I recently banned that, it doesn't seem fair)
We believe this arguement concerning fairness has been repeatedly demolished, and have no desire to waste further time upon it.

Back to the american civil war. The south had some intellegant leaders. What they didn't have were resources. They had very few ways to buy/manufacture weapons and supplies. There are not many real examples of a well armed force losing to a poorly armed force. You could cite games. A superior force loses to pockets of poorly armed resistance in Half-Life 2.
Now you appear to be equating money with resources. A more natural error, we suppose, but one which is particularly dangerously incorrect when considering an inferior force of massively greater numbers, as is commonly the case with insurrection. Superior arms only tell when they can be brought to bear, and that is not commonly the case when the foe is internal.

Adam Smith believed the government should stay out of the economy and unions would be a violation of liberty in his opinion.
We are not well-versed in the philosophies of Mr Smith, but our limited understanding is that this is a common misstatement of his writings. In any case, unless the ambassador would care to add some reasoning we are not inclined to put any great weight on that proud statement.

Depending on what kind of nation you represent it is both.
So the ambassador is attempting to have it both ways. Clearly there is no point in responding further to his rhetoric.

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 06:00

A legally authorized strike is one that has been authorized by a union (Sec. 3a) and does not violate the provisions of this resolution or national law.

And anyone (as long as there are two or more) can form a union unimpeded by government intervention.... So really it would be very difficult to have an illegal strike (except in the noted examples of certain government employees and in cases where the strike would cause appreciable and discernible detriment to public health/safety). Interesting.

I'm afraid this resolution makes needless complications and demands of UN member nations' justice and legislative systems. It requires employers in member nations to retain hirelings that have gone on strike, forbidding any dismissals on the grounds of the strike or membership in the union. But the government interference necessary to ascertain that an employee's dismissal was unrelated to striking and/or union membership would be tedious, difficult, wasteful, and possibly inaccurate. It has too much potential to be abused by fired employees--and businesses in many nations would often most likely pay a settlement rather than deal with court costs, resulting in unfair gains by unproductive, disruptive, or otherwise unemployable citizens. Lawyers will love it, but there is too much potential for injustice.

Furthermore, as Mr. Cabaladze notes (in post #158), dedicated employers can work around the legislation to inflict punitive measures on the employees unless further legislation by the individual member nations themselves is enacted to cover the loopholes, and in such nations as would pass said legislation the right to form a union is most likely already in place and tailored to the individual nations' specific needs.

As it is, I believe this legislation will be too powerful (to the point of destructive) in nations that will take the spirit of the resolution seriously, yet inadequate for nations that will work around the letter of the law.

We would agree if we coud believe that all employers were fair, honest, and had the best interests of their workers at heart. Unfortunately, we believe that history shows that the ability to unionize and to take job actions are necessary methods of promoting fair treatment of workers and allowing them to at least partially counterbalance the otherwise almost complete power the employer has over them. We hope the honorable representative will reconsider his vote.

While I find your sentiments appreciable, I do not believe that they are grounded in the reality of the situation, nor that acting on your sentiments (by voting for this resolution) would lead to the outcome you desire.

We agree that (in a capitalist society, at least) citizens require jobs to earn capital and require capital to survive. It therefore stands to reason that we should do our best to promote an economic atmosphere that provides our citizens plentiful job opportunities, for example by attracting businesses to our nations. One incentive for a business to move is reduced costs--sometimes at the expense of employee wages or other benefits, perhaps providing compensation below the level that employees want or need. We recognize that this can be the opposite of what we're trying to achieve in attracting employers in the first place. However, a better way to deal with this problem is to specifically target the sources of such economic injustice--that is, monopolies and "company town" scenarios that take advantage of the inelasticity of employee markets (that is, employees have nowhere else to turn and thus will continue working for an employer even when conditions/wages are below what would normally be tolerable).

If there is competitive business, employers do have incentive to make their available positions appealing to job-seekers, thereby improving conditions and benefits without wasteful, inefficient, and flawed legislation. There is, in fact, healthy competition for good workers. Qualified workers ought to (and generally do) check out multiple job opportunities before accepting one--and the wages, hours, conditions, and benefits are the deciding factors. Employers want employees, and although people need to work just to survive, as long as no business has a monopoly on employment competitive wages and benefits are inherent in the system.

Rather than scaring away businesses to foreign markets with union legislation, extensive interference, and increases costs and therefore less international economical competitiveness, actively attracting businesses (and promoting competition) would serve as its own check against employee abuse, and do so more efficiently.

As technology improves and makes job-seeking easier and easier (and closer to a perfect competition system) in many nations, we can realize a system in which market forces balance out the negatives, with only minimal government intervention to prevent market failures like monopolies.

While unionizing may be a good compromise in some nations, I definitely do not believe it is the best or only answer to unjust treatment or benefits to employees.

With this in mind, I respectfully disagree with your assumption that "the ability to unionize and to take job actions are necessary methods of promoting fair treatment of workers," and my vote remains against this resolution.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

As a side note, I observe that Mr. Rudenbaker of Shazbotdom believes that the resolution will improve national GDP because the benefits to employees will encourage more productivity. I tend to disagree. I would challenge Mr. Rudenbaker to produce sound evidence that the increase in productivity of happy workers (which has yet to be measured) would outweigh the combined damages of decreased business introduction, outsourcing, and reduced international competitiveness.

The Most Glorious Hack

28-07-2007, 06:00

It does not allow for "free will" of nations. It is that "free will" that makes a nation a nation.Sure it does. Ever hear of "loopholes"? At least one regular here is rather proud of their loophole exploitation, and have an entire branch of their government dedicated to it.

The Most Glorious Hack

28-07-2007, 06:14

And anyone (as long as there are two or more) can form a union unimpeded by government intervention.... So really it would be very difficult to have an illegal strikeNah, not really. The point was to allow union members to strike, but to prevent so-called wildcat strikes. Yes, if you're in a local union of two people, it's pretty easy to authorize a strike; however, most unions aren't going to be formed in that way. A two person union is little more than an intellectual exercise, really; such a union would have no true power.

Now, dealing with a more realistic union, let's look at an oil refinery. The workers there are all members of a union, probably a national or international union. Probably a rather broadly defined one, such as 'The International Brotherhood of Industrial Plant Workers'. Still, it could be smaller, such as 'The National Union of Oil Refinery Workers'. Regardless, you have a hundred or so workers in a given refinery, and a union of, say, 3000 members. Should the 100 workers at the given refinery say 'screw this' and go on strike, it would be an illegal strike: they would need to work through their (inter)national union, which would work with the company before going on strike.

Illegal strikes aren't that difficult to manage. Really, just watch a movie that has workers deciding to go on strike. Half the time, those are probably wildcat.

It requires employers in member nations to retain hirelings that have gone on strike, forbidding any dismissals on the grounds of the strike or membership in the union.Not exactly. You're not thinking outside the box. With our oil refinery, let's say it's a mixed shop. There are 75 union laborers and 25 non-union ones. The union goes on a legal strike, but the 25 non-union members cross the line to work. While the company couldn't say "We're firing you union thugs," they should be able to say, "Anybody who doesn't show up to work on Friday gets fired." Non-union members who don't show up get fired too.

Even if my loophole isn't workable (I haven't read the proposal in depth), do remember that benefits are a major part of what employers pay their employees. How much is spent per worker for insurance? Vacation time? Sick days? Personal days? Meal allowances? Company cars? Various other goodies? All they need to pay is raw wages.

Granted, I don't much care for this section of the proposal (not paying striking workers keeps workers from striking at the drop of a hat), but I don't think it's a total deal-breaker.

Lawyers will love it, but there is too much potential for injustice.Heh. Time for some Tort Reform, methinks.

As it is, I believe this legislation will be too powerful (to the point of destructive) in nations that will take the spirit of the resolution seriously, yet inadequate for nations that will work around the letter of the law.Well, that's the give-and-take of every resolution passed by this body, really.

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

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 06:20

Even if my loophole isn't workable (I haven't read the proposal in depth), do remember that benefits are a major part of what employers pay their employees. How much is spent per worker for insurance? Vacation time? Sick days? Personal days? Meal allowances? Company cars? Various other goodies? All they need to pay is raw wages.

The resolution states that the employer does not need to pay the employees wages while on strike. Or are you suggesting punishing strikers who've returned to work by reducing their benefits without affecting their traditional wages? (In which case I already suggested that not too long ago ;) )

Eastern Noble

28-07-2007, 06:26

erm... sorry to interrupt, but isn't this a loophole?

b. Workers may not be terminated from employment for participating in a legally authorized strike or industrial action.

Well, it does not state whether "legally authorized" refers to the nation or the UN (or what it is). And because of nation sovereignty they are the ones who will dictate whether a strike is legal. The UN has not stated it, therefore the nations decide it. So, if nations laws prohibit unions, those laws are gone. HOWEVER, those laws also prohibit strikes, if I am correct (otherwise they will be created). Therefore, capitalist countries can decide whether to allow strikes in their country or not.

I feel so pleased with myself :D

The Most Glorious Hack

28-07-2007, 06:28

The resolution states that the employer does not need to pay the employees wages while on strike. Or are you suggesting punishing strikers who've returned to work by reducing their benefits without affecting their traditional wages? (In which case I already suggested that not too long ago ;) )Well, I guess I really haven't looked at the resolution too deeply. As for the rest, well... back when I still had workers, I would eat them if they went on strike, which solved the problem, but tended to make the others nervous.

Back on topic, retaining the workers isn't necessarily crippling to the business. If the company holds out long enough, they'll break the union's back (or, at least, the members' backs). In reality, the worst part about taking the workers back is the tension between the workers and the company, but that's bound to happen regardless. And, if the company could simply fire the striking workers, that would kind of eliminate the point of striking, I guess.

Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Opendia

28-07-2007, 06:28

A coup? Were it so, everyone would be writing resolutions and not bothering with insurrections and invasions. We suggest that you overstate the power of this single resolution. Certainly not. We believe it important that nations of all kinds come together and learn from each other. But every nation which joins this body must acknowledge that the UN has the right to and will at some time make decisions that they aren't going to agree with. Rubinan society is quite libertine and we chafe under some of the more conservative moral decency provisions this body has passed. We also evince a distaste for free trade and view most of the trade and commerce legislation here with a jaundiced eye. We continue to believe, however, that membership in the UN overrides such impositions.

I think the reason that resolutions are not the main form of overthrowing nations is because most resolutions that could cause coups would never be accepted (ie. all citizens get guns, or all enviromental policies must be banned) and the fact that you aren't forced to remain in the UN and you could quit if you felt like it. As for your stance on free trade, I must say I find my political beliefs influenced by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

No, they aren't equal and we apologize if that was the impression given. The delegate from Gizico maintained that the UN should be working on resolutions concerning slavery (and child labor, et al.) instead of labor relations. We were merely pointing out that their suggested concerns had already been addressed.

That assurance makes me feel much better. I find it difficult to compare slavery to labor unions.

We note, however, your willingness to impose on others your issues of importance. Iamloco does the same, being quite willing to impose freemarket capitalist ideals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12717643&postcount=48) on everyone regardless of their economic systems or technological development, yet playing the "weak UN" card when it suits them. All of which makes the 'ur in my nation banning my ideology' argument hypocritical and tiresome.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I would force my capitalist ideals upon you. If I have done so it was completely unintentional. Although my nation is obviously capitalist you will notice social welfare is of importance in my government. Also the main thing I dislike about this resolution isn't the unions but some of the details about the unions being forced upon us.

Incorrect. The UN is not allowed to ban ideologies. Ideals ("Slavery is good.!!," for a ludicrous example) are fair game.

Thank you for clarifying that, however I no longer believe the proposal is illegal. However I do believe it is unneccisary.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Yelda

28-07-2007, 06:36

Well, it does not state whether "legally authorized" refers to the nation or the UN (or what it is).
It refers to legally authorized by a union. See 3.a.
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.

I feel so pleased with myself :D
Don't.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 06:38

Eastern Noble, I noticed that problem too, and I asked a similar question ("What distinguishes a legally authorized strike?") in Post #153 and was answered in Post #157 (with Section 3.a, as you were).

Great minds think (and fail) alike, eh?

Eastern Noble

28-07-2007, 06:43

But it does not say that. You don't tell us that that refers to that as legally authorized.

Not ONLY that, but it

"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.
"

but it does not declare that national governments may NOT exempt anyone else.

So even there it could still do it.

The "including, but not limited to" is a powerful phrase, my friend, and that is what this is equivalent to, in my country's mind. So you'd better be ready to put up a pretty strong legal fight - my capitalism is going NOWHERE.

So there.

Eastern Noble

28-07-2007, 06:44

Yeah, but this might still work. :)

Eastern Noble

28-07-2007, 06:53

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.

"National Law 1.01:

Unions created may be a maximum of 2 people."

lol.

Yelda

28-07-2007, 07:06

"National Law 1.01:

Unions created may be a maximum of 2 people."
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.

I'm afraid your proposed national law would "impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution".

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Eastern Noble

28-07-2007, 07:06

Well, I'm going to make up a stupid argument and say that they can "draw them up" but they can't apply them... yeah, i know.

*points to other argument about previous loophole*

look at that.

Crendenia

28-07-2007, 07:38

Not exactly. You're not thinking outside the box. With our oil refinery, let's say it's a mixed shop. There are 75 union laborers and 25 non-union ones. The union goes on a legal strike, but the 25 non-union members cross the line to work. While the company couldn't say "We're firing you union thugs," they should be able to say, "Anybody who doesn't show up to work on Friday gets fired." Non-union members who don't show up get fired too.

The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack[/size]

I found a loophole in your loophole, I'll show up for work, but I'll refuse to do any of it or an extremely small amount.

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 07:42

Well, the Unions can certainly make their own rules, but they must still obey the rules of the nations they are within. For example, if a union charter demanded that its citizens murder someone to obtain membership it could very well be illegal within the framework of the national government. National laws must still apply to unions, UN resolutions notwithstanding.

So, does this resolution then ban national governments from making any laws specifically restricting unions? If so, the loophole would have to be passing blanket legislation that either affects all citizens [such as "murder is illegal"] or that affects a broadly defined set of organizations that happens to include unions.

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 07:44

I found a loophole in your loophole, I'll show up for work, but I'll refuse to do any of it or an extremely small amount.

But then the company would have a legitimate reason to fire you (rather than just firing you because of the union/strike) and you'd have no protection under this resolution. Muted trombone: bwah-bwah-bwaaah.

Allied Tion

28-07-2007, 14:58

In solemn resignation as to the fact that this bill may indeed pass I've come up with some possible legislative solutions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"
provided that those actions do not cause physical harm to persons or property;"

Well i define causing as indirectly as well as directly and it is my belief that any action that causes a slowdown in the economic process is causing physical harm to the men and women in my hospitals and defense forces as the wasted man hours of labor may well have been better applied at reducing the trauma suffered by men and women in these areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"
The department of citizenship, immigration and foreign travel wields the authority to at any time suspend or revoke any citizenship or Visa with the approval of the departments head or any figure with authority A-3 or higher."

(i revoke their citizenship and hold them on charges for being in my nation illegally at any point. I can refuse to grant a Visa and deport them)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"
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."

"It is resolved of this Parliament that any action that could be seen to be detrimental to any of the economic, military, legal, medical or other process within the UFAT shall be considered to pose a significant endangerment to the welfare of the public and the national interest."

(there, you slow down an economic process, the DPP can charge you.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At any time, with view as to the national interest, the President may authorize the conscription of any individual into government services including the armed services."

"Failure of a member of the armed services to comply with a direct order shall be subject to court marshal at the discretion of the unit commanding officer or any officer his senior. In the case of conditions where expediency is deemed vital by the unit commander, summary action may be taken as described in section 287B"

(draft them, order them to deploy elsewhere, as far as I'm concerned they're still striking. If they fail to comply with orders then they are subject to military rule.)

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

(
This is an easy one. I legislate fair notice as something reasonable. Say 150 years. Or i could mark the day from the time the message is processed and relayed to a certain level, then of course it could take as long as i wanted to get there. )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Disclosing information that may be of aid to potential enemies of the Federation shall include but not be limited to the provision of the any of the following to any other individual in such a situation and circumstance that the court sees as undesirable
-Public Moral
-Matters of Public Interest
-Any matter discusses within the Parliament within the last 50 years
-Economic issues
-Personal occupations
-Discussion of organizations with members or associates within the UFAT or who have at one stage taken action that has effected the UFAT."

(there you are, if i don't like you talking about something it's treason, but don't worry I'm not restricting your right to form a union or anything, treason is completely unrelated.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are more but i think i've already put out enough that those of us who wish to maintain union busting autonomy need not worry about this resolution.

I can always pull out taxation, government charges, communications shutdowns due to random breakdowns etc.

I can put as much unofficial pressure on these people as i want and if that involved an accidental gas explosion or accidental firearms discharge or a tragic malfunction that leads to a cruise missile hitting a house in the worst cases well then so be it.

(note i do not necessarily support any of these ideas, i merely put them forward and are considering some.)

Flibbleites

28-07-2007, 15:20

I'd love to stay and fight. Believe me. However, I am not going to be micromanaged by a bunch of pinkish bootlickers to the point where my nations economy collapses.

Regards,
HRH, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Defender of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, Ruler of all the birds in the Air and all the Fish in the Sea, Protector and Visionite of our Children , and Protector of the Legacies of our Nations Ancestors, King Raymond I
Minilla Island

Trust me, the UN isn't going to run your economy into the ground. I've heard that ridiculous claim before and in the instances where the nation's economy has been ruined it's always the nation's choices that ruined the economy.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: As an addendum to what my character said, bear in mind that issues affect your nation daily (unless you dismiss them), while the UN only passes resolutions about once a week.

Citenka

28-07-2007, 15:39

We've already admitted an oversight on our part. But to say it makes Article 2b useless is ridiculous. Article 2b provides protection against one way -- the most severe and most likely way -- an employer would take punitive action against strikers. Yes, if unions can include this in contracts, it will take care of the situation. And the main purpose of this resolution is to ensure that unions can exist if the workers choose to form and join them.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister
If workers wage will be very low, they just can’t live on it. Difference is small enough to make Article 2b useless.
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.

I guess they could demote everyone, but they couldn't demote just the union members simply because they were union members and had participated in a strike.
This resolution will not outlaw strikes not approved by the union, it just allow national government to do this. So if employer will drop wages to everyone who participated in the strike, members of the labor unions will not be discriminated. And even if national government will outlaw strikes not approved by the union, employer can just punish workers equally for the legal and for the illegal strikes.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

St Edmundan Antarctic

28-07-2007, 17:27

I'm not about to try reading all of that mess. You understand that Aki isn't exactly an IntFed, don't you?

I had previously thought that he wasn't, but on this occasion he definitely seemed to be talking like one...

Renastere

28-07-2007, 17:51

As part of our new government’s move toward improved (as opposed to no!)international relations, I have perused the debate over this resolution. I must commend reasonable and respectful arguments such as those provided by Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield from Twafflonia, and Iris Fairchild of Logopia. Most disappointing were the personal attacks, blanket dismissals of others’ ideas and the ‘if you disagree, then leave’-type statements. My government may be inclined to return to its isolationist position as a result of this. (I will encourage them to allow my continued representation for now….)

As for the Labor Relations Act, the ‘Nos’ have convinced me of the invasiveness and overreaching of this resolution, and I will be voting against this unnecessary piece of legislation. We already have plenty of that within our own government.....

Frege Gott,
Renastere Council of Leaders (Logic)

New Avarin

28-07-2007, 18:26

Cookesland

28-07-2007, 18:41

The Sovereign Principality of New Avarin does not support this measure, and encourages other nations to vote AGAINST this resolution.

We beleive that this act would force specific ideological beliefs upon member nations, and removes the right of each individual government to manage thier own internal enconomies.

This act does not promote any international agenda, exept to oppress those who do not follow specific capitalistic traditions.

How is this oppressing non-Capitalist Nations, if anything it's the opposite. This proposal is meant to give the workers themselves more power and the change to collectively bargain with their superiors. Which to me sounds like fundamental socialism.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 19:16

Many thanks to Mr. Gott of Renastere for his commendation.

How is this oppressing non-Capitalist Nations, if anything it's the opposite. This proposal is meant to give the workers themselves more power and the change to collectively bargain with their superiors. Which to me sounds like fundamental socialism.

The Ambassador of New Avarin said that the resolution oppresses "those who do not follow specific capitalist traditions," for example: certain capitalist traditions that might view the mandatory right of workers to strike as destructive, disruptive, and inefficient, or certain socialist traditions in which workers are assigned tasks based on the needs of the nation.

Regards,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield,
Twafflonia

Eastern Noble

28-07-2007, 19:29

To the opposing side:

You are winning because you have the support of those who vote for. We are not losing, for we have reason. When the repeal comes, do not be surprised.

I really do not prefer the inner workings of my government to be tampered with by those who wish for a more equal world. If my nations wishes its people to have unions, it will provide them itself. I would like to compound all the statements against in the following:

This is attacking the sovereignty of those capitalist nations who wish to stay in the UN. Not only this, but the resolution doing so is flawed is so many ways that it is pointless to pass. It is a useless attack that just makes life more difficult.

In saying this, I realize that it was the best intention of those socialist-like nations to give more power to the people. However, these must also realize that not all nations have the same moral and political standings as themselves, and should respect that in a degree which does not end up similar to the "If you don't like it, leave" argument.

I wish to commend their attempts at such a resolution, but also note that this is against the basic principles of the UN also; the UN's goal is to promote a sense of global unity and upgrade the standards of living of all people (not necessarily meaning all equal) in a peaceful manner. However, this resolution simply spreads a feeling of hostility through those nations against whom it is directed.

In a closing note, I just want to reiterate the fact that nation's sovereignty should be considered in a realistic manner before another attempt at this is made. Provisions should be made for those governments so as to allow their basic infrastructure to continue unchanged. I do not believe unions would fall into these categories, also because that assumes that the "Right to Assembly" is a basic right in all nations. Do not overwrite laws, bend them.

I wish the best luck to those who are attempting to rally more support against this resolution, but I have done my share by contacting over one-hundred of the major regions with a message promoting our view of the resolution. The majority have replied that they have already voted against. This tells me that it is the smaller regions who are influencing this vote. I will now cease to argue a thoroughly argued point, and will leave the rest to fate.

Until next time, this is Jónas Ernst, High Ambassador to the UN from the Grand Federation of Eastern Noble in the Glorious Region of the Free States of Gaia, signing off.

Bodacioustown

28-07-2007, 19:48

It seems as though in a country with free-market capitalism, government interference such as a union can stifle that nature.

Ausserland

28-07-2007, 20:26

We regret that we've been unable to convince the representative of Tafflonia to support this resolution. However, we must say we appreciate and applaud the serious effort Ambassador Strathfield has put into considering the resolution and making his views known. We'd like to respond to just one portion of his comments.

We agree that (in a capitalist society, at least) citizens require jobs to earn capital and require capital to survive. It therefore stands to reason that we should do our best to promote an economic atmosphere that provides our citizens plentiful job opportunities, for example by attracting businesses to our nations. One incentive for a business to move is reduced costs--sometimes at the expense of employee wages or other benefits, perhaps providing compensation below the level that employees want or need. We recognize that this can be the opposite of what we're trying to achieve in attracting employers in the first place. However, a better way to deal with this problem is to specifically target the sources of such economic injustice--that is, monopolies and "company town" scenarios that take advantage of the inelasticity of employee markets (that is, employees have nowhere else to turn and thus will continue working for an employer even when conditions/wages are below what would normally be tolerable).

If there is competitive business, employers do have incentive to make their available positions appealing to job-seekers, thereby improving conditions and benefits without wasteful, inefficient, and flawed legislation. There is, in fact, healthy competition for good workers. Qualified workers ought to (and generally do) check out multiple job opportunities before accepting one--and the wages, hours, conditions, and benefits are the deciding factors. Employers want employees, and although people need to work just to survive, as long as no business has a monopoly on employment competitive wages and benefits are inherent in the system.

Rather than scaring away businesses to foreign markets with union legislation, extensive interference, and increases costs and therefore less international economical competitiveness, actively attracting businesses (and promoting competition) would serve as its own check against employee abuse, and do so more efficiently.

As technology improves and makes job-seeking easier and easier (and closer to a perfect competition system) in many nations, we can realize a system in which market forces balance out the negatives, with only minimal government intervention to prevent market failures like monopolies.

While unionizing may be a good compromise in some nations, I definitely do not believe it is the best or only answer to unjust treatment or benefits to employees.

We agree completely that unionization is not the only way that employees could be assured of fair treatment and fair compensation by their employers. As the Ambassador points out, there are probably better ways. But we don't believe we should legislate for the world as we wish it to be. We must legislate for the world as we find it.

If all workers could market their services globally without restraint, there would likely be little or no need for unions. But there are many socio-economic factors that, if considered realistically, preclude this in many situations. Does the representative really believe that nations which wish to prevent their workers from organizing would take any substantial action against monopolies or do anything to alleviate the situation of the company town?

We have never held that unionization was the only way to deal with problems of labor. But we hold that, given the world as it is, it is one proven effective way. And, again given the world as it is, it may well be the only way available to specific groups of workers. We believe it should be available to them. We believe that workers should be guaranteed the ability to decide whether, in their specific situations, forming and joining a union is in their best interests in their specific socio-economic environments.

If Ambassador Strathfield should care to offer legislation addressing other aspects of labor problems, we would certainly give it careful and respectful attention. But we will not abandon our position on this resolution in the hope (which we believe to be, unfortunately, a vain one) that some other, better solution will come along.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Akimonad

28-07-2007, 20:44

but also note that this is against the basic principles of the UN also; the UN's goal is to promote a sense of global unity and upgrade the standards of living of all people (not necessarily meaning all equal) in a peaceful manner.

Since when have we had principles? I wasn't aware of this...

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 20:48

Thank you for your words, Prime Minister Auschenbach. I do not in fact have any resolution that would offer a universal alternative to unionization to ameliorate the possible injustices employers may force on employees. Such a resolution would only work for nations of a certain ideological bent, and fail miserably as much as it would succeed, depending on the nations in which it would be implemented. Likewise, however, I maintain that unionizing as a solution needn't be universally applied to all UN member nations.

Does the representative really believe that nations which wish to prevent their workers from organizing would take any substantial action against monopolies or do anything to alleviate the situation of the company town?

I believe that there are nations, such as my own, that strive toward a working competitive free market that benefits every citizen. Furthermore, if the purpose of this legislation is to target specifically those nations that prevent worker organization and support company towns and monopolies, perhaps a better angle to take would be a resolution that targets company towns and monopolies, thereby letting the competitive market improve benefits and conditions. However, this would--like the unionization law--only be useful to certain nations. It would not be universally applicable.

I suppose that is my primary concern--that the universality of this resolution's benefits is dubious, given the ideological and practical government variety of UN member nations.

But I offer you comfort in that I am but one vote "against" in a sea of votes "for." Congratulations if and when your resolution passes (although I may try to repeal it).

Regards,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

Cookesland

28-07-2007, 21:01

The Ambassador of New Avarin said that the resolution oppresses "those who do not follow specific capitalist traditions," for example: certain capitalist traditions that might view the mandatory right of workers to strike as destructive, disruptive, and inefficient, or certain socialist traditions in which workers are assigned tasks based on the needs of the nation.

Well, these specific capitalist traditions wouldn't have to worry about their workers wanting to strike if they were treating them like humans rather than machines.

This is attacking the sovereignty of those capitalist nations who wish to stay in the UN. Not only this, but the resolution doing so is flawed is so many ways that it is pointless to pass. It is a useless attack that just makes life more difficult.

I believe Ambassador Talone said something like this earlier: "If it's so flawed why is the majority of your defense stating the purpose of the UN rather thant the proposal itself?"

I wish to commend their attempts at such a resolution, but also note that this is against the basic principles of the UN also; the UN's goal is to promote a sense of global unity and upgrade the standards of living of all people (not necessarily meaning all equal) in a peaceful manner. However, this resolution simply spreads a feeling of hostility through those nations against whom it is directed.

but wouldn't letting workers unionize for the purpose of them trying up their standard of living peacefully by collective bargain be under your definition of the UN's Purpose?

Good thing everyone seemingly has a different view of the UN's Purpose...

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Yelda

28-07-2007, 21:18

When the repeal comes, do not be surprised.

I fully expect a repeal attempt. Maybe several. You should fully expect a replacement if a repeal succeeds.

There has never been a clear consensus on this issue. Neither side really has the numbers to make their position "stick". Here are some numbers for historical reference:

"The Rights of Labor Unions" passed by a vote of 10158 FOR, 8228 AGAINST.

Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions" passed by a vote of 8,615 FOR, 5,154 AGAINST.

"The Right to Form Unions" passed by a vote of 7,577 FOR, 5,394 AGAINST.

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions" passed by a vote of 6,233 FOR, 4,670 AGAINST.

In each case there is a difference of about 2000 or so votes. In addition to these examples there were several failed attempts to repeal both of the earlier resolutions.

The current vote is running 4,453 FOR and 3,164 AGAINST. I expect it will pass by about 2000 votes.

So yes, I expect there will be repeal attempts. The majority clearly favors pro-union legislation, but not by a significant enough margin to make it repeal-proof.

I find it ironic that some of you are getting so worked up over this Resolution when it is, in fact, more balanced in regards to the rights of businesses and national governments than either of its predecessors. Have you bothered to read "The Rights of Labor Unions"? "The Right to Form Unions"?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 21:23

Rubina

28-07-2007, 21:28

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with you here. Article 1 only says that workers have the right to join one of the existing unions or create a new one. It doesn’t say that government can’t create regulations, which will make independence of existing or newly created labor unions almost impossible.Article 1 doesn't, but article 9 does.

I'd love to stay and fight. Believe me. However, I am not going to be micromanaged by a bunch of pinkish bootlickers to the point where my nations economy collapses.

I already have serious labor problems in my nation. Their are strikes on a daily basisPerhaps if his highness' nation treated his nation's workers as something besides serfs, he might not have as many problems.

... however I no longer believe the proposal is illegal. However I do believe it is unneccisary.Any port in a storm, eh? Any rationale just as long as it supports what you wanted to do in the first place? And East Noble boasts the lot of you have reason on your side. How ironic.

But then the company would have a legitimate reason to fire you (rather than just firing you because of the union/strike) and you'd have no protection under this resolution. Muted trombone: bwah-bwah-bwaaah.Wrong, Ambassador. Such action, if approved by the union and notice served on the company, would be a legal industrial action and could not result in retaliation of any kind on such workers.

We beleive that this act would force specific ideological beliefs upon member nations...As does every single resolution that is approved by this body. Do try again.

To the opposing side:

You are winning because you have the support of those who vote for. We are not losing, for we have reason. ... This is attacking the sovereignty of those capitalist nations who wish to stay in the UN. ... the UN's goal is to promote a sense of global unity and upgrade the standards of living of all people.... (not necessarily meaning all equal) in a peaceful manner. However, this resolution simply spreads a feeling of hostility through those nations against whom it is directed.Thank you Capt. Obvious. Usually those winning have the support of those voting on the same side. The implication that those voting for this resolution lack reason, however, is a load of hooey and offensive to boot. We do wish however, that the lot of you would get together and make up your mind as to whether this resolution is anti-capitalist or an anti-socialist (it's neither), and whether it's so weak as to be useless or so powerful as to bring entire nations to their knees (again it's neither).

Oh and do provide for us an official copy of the the UN's goal as you've seen fit to pronounce it. Our secretary has only so much discretionary time during the day and seems to spend most of it moping around the door to Mr. Smithers' office.

I have done my share by contacting over one-hundred of the major regions with a message promoting our view of the resolution. The majority have replied that they have already voted against. This tells me that it is the smaller regions who are influencing this vote.What this should tell you, since the resolution is still passing, is that a majority of nations support workers' right to organize.
________
...[O]ur sponsors ... so assured by this proposal's many allowances for restricting union and striking rights, they are allowing us to abstain on this motion, instead of opposing it. I think one of them might be having an affair with a Rubinan.This is scandalous, Cdr. Chiang. Meet us in the bar later and we'll plan a little blackmail.

Leetha Talone,
Proud Pinkish Bootlicker and
UN Ambassador

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 21:35

Wrong, Ambassador. Such action, if approved by the union and notice served on the company, would be a legal industrial action and could not result in retaliation of any kind on such workers.

Well, approval by the union and notice served the company were not given in Crendenia's scenario. The scenario as given was that the company, after being informed of when a strike would take place, informed all its workers (whether unionized or not) that if they did not show up for work on that day they would be fired. Crendenia's suggested response was to go to work but do no or minimal work. As that is not the union authorized action that the union informed the company of, the worker is not protected by the resolution and may be fired.

Rubina

28-07-2007, 21:40

You must, however, concede that if the authorization and notification conditions were met, the union workers who participated in a sit-down strike (which is what you described) could not be fired. Thus there is no loophole there.

Yelda

28-07-2007, 21:42

Without passing moral judgment on the resolution in question, just because something is not as bad as bad things that preceded it doesn't make it good.
Well let me just say in response to your comments that....

*Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú's cell phone rings. He answers.*

"What's that? My car is on fire!? Good Lord! Yes, I'll be right there."

*He folds the phone and puts it away.*

I'm afraid I have to leave to attend to some personal business. Sorry.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 21:56

Yes, that is certainly conceded, Rubina.

And good luck with your car, Ambassador Spøtyiú.

Iron Felix

28-07-2007, 22:42

Well let me just say in response to your comments that....

*Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú's cell phone rings. He answers.*

"What's that? My car is on fire!? Good Lord! Yes, I'll be right there."

*He folds the phone and puts it away.*

I'm afraid I have to leave to attend to some personal business. Sorry.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

The doors of the assembly are flung open and Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky storms into the hall. He discards a cell phone and a can of lighter fluid in a nearby trash receptacle, then strides up to Jónas Ernst, High Ambassador of the Federation of Eastern Noble.

Reaching into a leather satchel, he extracts what appears to a jar full of human eyeballs. He removes one and places it on Ambassador Ernst's shoulder.

I'm going to be keeping an eye on you.

Felix approaches the podium and speaks.

Comrades, fellow members of the General Assembly, my former colleagues, the circumstances that summon me to this debate cause me great anguish. It seems that reactionary elements have vandalized comrade ambassador Spøtyiú's motorcar and now I must step in and take his place.

I have come here on short notice, having taken leave from a social event (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=560) that I was hosting. I hope to conclude business here quickly so that I my return to entertaining my guests.

Now. Preparations for defenestrations are running a little behind but let me assure you the offending delegations will be thrown out of all available windows at the earliest possible time. Meanwhile, I have here a list of the delegations which are to be defenestrated:

Iamloco
Disc Golfing
Citenka
Xenofungus
Eastern Noble
Wylers
Logopia
Govindia
Opendia
Minilla Island
Twafflonia

There may be others as I have yet to review the transcripts of the "debate" in detail. Also, I may consider granting a reprieve to the Twafflonian delegation. Their arguments are reasoned, though WRONG.

Ambassador Spøtyiú is a kind and reasonable man, perhaps a bit too reasonable. I am not. This Resolution strikes a practical and sensible balance between the rights of workers, the rights of businesses and the rights of national governments. It provides ample room for national governments to regulate labor relations in their jurisdictions. It has been drafted by, and is supported by, nations from across the political spectrum. Also, in case some of you haven't noticed, the Kennyites are abstaining. Did you hear what I just said? THE KENNYITES ARE ABSTAINING! That should tell you all you need to know and if it doesn't, shut up.

I must now go and prepare the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2. Meanwhile, my associates will keep watch over the proceedings.

Several dozen (ah hell, make it a hundred) Robotic Destructor Bunnies™ pour into the General Assembly and take up positions near the exits.

That is all.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Akimonad

28-07-2007, 22:59

Now. Preparations for defenestrations are running a little behind but let me assure you the offending delegations will be thrown out of all available windows at the earliest possible time.

Ah, good. Some action. May I assist?

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Citenka

28-07-2007, 23:16

Article 1 doesn't, but article 9 does.
Article 9 doesn’t do anything by itself. It just guarantees that national law will not contradict other parts of the resolution. But you’re right, Article 7 give enough protection to the independence of the unions. I’m sorry, I was wrong.
Wrong, Ambassador. Such action, if approved by the union and notice served on the company, would be a legal industrial action and could not result in retaliation of any kind on such workers.
They probably cannot be simply fired. But their wage can be lowered as much as employer want. And Article 8 will not save them because of this:
This resolution will not outlaw strikes not approved by the union, it just allow national government to do this. So if employer will drop wages to everyone who participated in the strike, members of the labor unions will not be discriminated. And even if national government will outlaw strikes not approved by the union, employer can just punish workers equally for the legal and for the illegal strikes.
This resolution in reality will not give workers much protection from the employer. I’m glad that it at least protects them from the government.

From my point of view this resolution is moderately pro-socialist and because of this my government votes for it. But at this moment I think that Article 2b is not working right.

The doors of the assembly are flung open and Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky storms into the hall. He discards a cell phone and a can of lighter fluid in a nearby trash receptacle, then strides up to Jónas Ernst, High Ambassador of the Federation of Eastern Noble.

Reaching into a leather satchel, he extracts what appears to a jar full of human eyeballs. He removes one and places it on Ambassador Ernst's shoulder.

I'm going to be keeping an eye on you.

Felix approaches the podium and speaks.

Comrades, fellow members of the General Assembly, my former colleagues, the circumstances that summon me to this debate cause me great anguish. It seems that reactionary elements have vandalized comrade ambassador Spøtyiú's motorcar and now I must step in and take his place.

I have come here on short notice, having taken leave from a social event (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=560) that I was hosting. I hope to conclude business here quickly so that I my return to entertaining my guests.

Now. Preparations for defenestrations are running a little behind but let me assure you the offending delegations will be thrown out of all available windows at the earliest possible time. Meanwhile, I have here a list of the delegations which are to be defenestrated:

Iamloco
Disc Golfing
Citenka
Xenofungus
Eastern Noble
Wylers
Logopia
Govindia
Opendia
Minilla Island
Twafflonia

There may be others as I have yet to review the transcripts of the "debate" in detail. Also, I may consider granting a reprieve to the Twafflonian delegation. Their arguments are reasoned, though WRONG.

Ambassador Spøtyiú is a kind and reasonable man, perhaps a bit too reasonable. I am not. This Resolution strikes a practical and sensible balance between the rights of workers, the rights of businesses and the rights of national governments. It provides ample room for national governments to regulate labor relations in their jurisdictions. It has been drafted by, and is supported by, nations from across the political spectrum. Also, in case some of you haven't noticed, the Kennyites are abstaining. Did you hear what I just said? THE KENNYITES ARE ABSTAINING! That should tell you all you need to know and if it doesn't, shut up.

I must now go and prepare the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2. Meanwhile, my associates will keep watch over the proceedings.

Several dozen (ah hell, make it a hundred) Robotic Destructor Bunnies™ pour into the General Assembly and take up positions near the exits.

That is all.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Comrade Dzerzhinsky, your words about compromise between the rights of the workers and the rights of the businesses clearly demonstrate your counterrevolution tendencies. In the name of the ideals of the Great October Socialist Revolution I will defenestrate you.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

After saying this, Ivan stands from his place, come to the window, opened it, and then moved in the direction of the podium.

Twafflonia

28-07-2007, 23:22

Ambassador Strathfield perks up. This will be his first official defenestration. He'll finally get to try out his splatter resistant shoes.

I respectfully decline any further consideration of a reprieve on my behalf. On with the defenestrations!

Iron Felix

29-07-2007, 00:34

Ah, good. Some action. May I assist?

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Of course!

Comrade Dzerzhinsky, your words about compromise between the rights of the workers and the rights of the businesses clearly demonstrate your counterrevolution tendencies. In the name of the ideals of the Great October Socialis Revolution I will defenestrate you.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

After saying this, Ivan stands from his place, come to the window, opened it, and then moved in the direction of the podium.
Let us begin with this fool.

Felix sidesteps the approaching Citenkan. Grabbing him by the collar and the seat of his trousers, he carries him, kicking and screaming, across the GA and hurls him out the nearest window. He lands with a "whump" in a dumpster below. Destructor Bunnies swarm over the dumpster and locate the dazed ambassador. He is dragged across the parking lot and loaded into a waiting M1931 203 mm howitzer. The howitzer is fired, lobbing Ambassador Cabaladze 10 km downrange.

He lands completely unharmed in (how's this for irony) the swimming pool of the nearby Ritz-Carlton Hotel causing several guests, most notably Yeldan Foreign Minister Quynn Olver, to spill their drinks. FM Olver decides that it might be prudent not to get another gin and tonic, but rather to check in with his UN delegation.

Tarsinia

29-07-2007, 00:54

Mark Newcastle the U.N. ambassador from the United States of Tarsinia is standing before the assembly preparing to speak on this issue before them....

"Ladies and Gentlemen for the past four years I have been a member of this body and while I have not always agreed with the issues we have discused I have followed along with them if passed. I can not and will not just stand by and let the U.N. strip nations of their right to govern themselfs."

"Where does the U.N. get the right to tell nations that they must have unions? If a nation does not wish to have unions then NOBODY has the right to force them to do so"

"This is not an issue of weather unions are good or bad but it is an issue of the U.N. trying to force member nations to follow it's agenda regardless of that member nations values"

"If this bill passes this body then the United States Of Tarsinia will withdraw from the U.N."

"Tarsinia has NEVER had and will NEVER have unions we hope and pray that is bill dies and is buried but if you force us to we shall withdraw and all ties with this body will be broken forever"

"Thank you for your time I hope and pray that the freedom loving nations will rise up and vote this down"

Waterana

29-07-2007, 01:01

Will keep this short and sweet.

I like. Have voted for.

The Arkbird

29-07-2007, 01:28

Opendia

29-07-2007, 02:20

Of course!

Let us begin with this fool.

Felix sidesteps the approaching Citenkan. Grabbing him by the collar and the seat of his trousers, he carries him, kicking and screaming, across the GA and hurls him out the nearest window. He lands with a "whump" in a dumpster below. Destructor Bunnies swarm over the dumpster and locate the dazed ambassador. He is dragged across the parking lot and loaded into a waiting M1931 203 mm howitzer. The howitzer is fired, lobbing Ambassador Cabaladze 10 km downrange.

He lands completely unharmed in (how's this for irony) the swimming pool of the nearby Ritz-Carlton Hotel causing several guests, most notably Yeldan Foreign Minister Quynn Olver, to spill their drinks. FM Olver decides that it might be prudent not to get another gin and tonic, but rather to check in with his UN delegation.

The masked Opendian delegate hears something coming from outside. He walks out of the room only to walk back in a second later.

"Sorry to disturb everyone, but I appear to have found the delegate for Iron Fenix mumbling something about a defenistration. He appears to have gotten drunk while reading about the history of Prague. Oh well, we can continue the discussion without him."

The People's Republic of Opendia

Gobbannium

29-07-2007, 02:51

You know, I could've sworn that we had a resolution that made unions, a government's own prerogative. EDIT: Okay, actually, it got rid of the resolution that made it so all nations had to approve unions. But, hey. It's to the same effect.

Ah yes. Page 43, Resolution 214.

Work on repealing 214 before you make a resolution that contradicts it.

Resolution 214 is a repeal, and as such is unrepealable. We will pass over the fatal flaws in its arguments to observe that the honoured representative from the Arkbird appears to be under a misapprehension as to the nature of repeals. Their purpose is to remove legislation from the law books, not to forbid the passing of legislation. The effect of the passage of Resolution 214 was the removal of resolution 149 from the law books, no more, no less; it is most certainly not the same effect as having a resolution that all nations may not be required to have unions. The current state of the UN's law concerning unions is that there isn't any UN law concerning unions one way or another.

On a more personal note, we would like to inform delegates that we are recording with some amusement selected portions of the last day's debate for use should anyone attempt to argue the Reasonable Nation Theory with us again.

New Germanacy

29-07-2007, 04:00

If Labor Unions are alloed to even form let alone strike they disrupt the economy and trade of the world. If that happens, all nation with Communist like morals will severly be affected. This simply cannot be allowed to happen.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

29-07-2007, 04:34

The masked Opendian delegate hears something coming from outside. He walks out of the room only to walk back in a second later.

"Sorry to disturb everyone, but I appear to have found the delegate for Iron Fenix mumbling something about a defenistration. He appears to have gotten drunk while reading about the history of Prague. Oh well, we can continue the discussion without him."[Muttering something about "I've had to sit here long enough listening to this douchebag; well, no more!", the commander suddenly rises from her seat, aiming an accusatory finger at the shifty-looking masked Opendian, and shrieking hysterically:]

TERRORIST!! TERRORIST!!! That suspicious-looking man is a terrorist!! And a Muslim! MUSLIM!!! Girls, seize him!

[Out of nowhere, the Kennyite security detail appears and apprehends the Opendian before he has the chance to react. The commander approaches him, still pointing her finger as her prey struggles in vain to free himself from the commandos' sensuous iron grip.]

So, you thought you could away with it! Acting stupid in this assembly so we'd never suspect you were behind that unexploded incendiary device planted in our office suite! Well, game's up, mister! As deputy national security adviser I am authorized to declare you an enemy combatant and sentence you to summary defenestration! And believe you me, you should count yourself lucky that that's the only thing I'm going to do to you! Ladies?

[She calmly returns to her seat as her officers hurl the delegate out the (closed) window; with a shattering of glass he falls screaming to the ground outside. The commander turns to the Yeldan delegation:]

You may cross Opendia off your list, Comrade.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Flibbleites

29-07-2007, 04:53

I find it ironic that some of you are getting so worked up over this Resolution when it is, in fact, more balanced in regards to the rights of businesses and national governments than either of its predecessors. Have you bothered to read "The Rights of Labor Unions"? "The Right to Form Unions"?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
AmbassadorOr for that matter, Groot's idea of a replacement for "The Right to Form Unions".

After saying this, Ivan stands from his place, come to the window, opened it, and then moved in the direction of the podium.

Wow, someone who opens the window prior to attempting to defenstrate someone, I'm sure the UN Building Management will be pleased.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Rubina

29-07-2007, 05:18

They probably cannot be simply fired. But their wage can be lowered as much as employer want.Only if all employee's wages are slashed is such a tactic legal. And frankly, any employer who does so will drive even larger numbers of his employees into the arms of the unions and will most certainly cause his own downfall.

Ah, we see Comrade Dzerzhinsky has arrived. Nothing else to do but kick back and watch the defenestrations. Leetha turns to her secretary. Becherie, be a dear and run down to the bar and get us some popcorn and beer.

Leetha Talone
Proud Pinko Ambassador

Ausserland

29-07-2007, 06:35

Ambassador Ahlmann leaps up from her chair and strides over to stand in front of the Twafflonian ambassador. Actually, she doesn't leap from her chair, she slides down off it. (Dwarves, you know.) And she doesn't stride, she trudges. When dwarves try to stride, it always turns into trudging. She points the lead-filled baseball bat she just happened to have under her desk at Iron Felix.

"You keep your damned bunnies away from this guy or I'll turn 'em into metal rabbit stew! He's got his head inserted about the resolution, but he's been decent about it. Even made some sense sometimes. And this time, open the windows before you throw the jerks out."

Twafflonia

29-07-2007, 07:24

Biddulph Strathfield holds a warding hand out to Ambassador Ahlmann.

Don't worry, Ambassador, I'll handle this. It seems I've chosen the wrong side of the argument to defend. As such, I respectfully accept the consequences and will defenestrate myself--even if no one else will. ...Though I still defend the arguments I have heretofore made known.

Ambassador Strathfield strides toward the nearest window, a sense of purpose and determination in his eyes.

Akimonad

29-07-2007, 12:44

Ambassador Strathfield strides toward the nearest window, a sense of purpose and determination in his eyes.

Dr. Hodz walks up behind the man, holding a torch and butane. He covers the man in butane and then lights him with the torch before kicking him through the window.

Twafflonia

29-07-2007, 16:09

As Biddulph Strathfield falls burning through the air, he shouts his last words for all to hear.

"I demand a viking funeral!"

Ambassador Strathfield falls to his flaming doom. His splatter-resistant shoes provide very little actual help.

Cookesland

29-07-2007, 16:20

Ambassador York looks at the "To Defenestrate List"

Iamloco
Disc Golfing
Citenka - defenestrated
Xenofungus
Eastern Noble
Wylers
Logopia
Govindia
Opendia - defenestrated
Minilla Island
Twafflonia - defenestrated/burned

"Hmm...Eastern Noble." he thought to himself and walked in Ambassador Ernst's direction

Brutland and Norden

29-07-2007, 16:32

Esteemed delegates, perhaps we need to control ourselves, now, don't we? It seems that the farmer outside gets annoyed every time somebody crashes on his big pile of cow poop (http://www.sakebomb.com/news/images/jeffandshit.jpg) and it gets scattered everywhere.

Please, use the pillory downstairs. Or duct tape if you like. *tosses a roll of pink duct tape*

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the UN

Omigodtheykilledkenny

29-07-2007, 16:50

[OOC: I don't suppose it would help to remind everyone that a two-story drop (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Headquarters#Ground_Floor) isn't usually fatal? ;)]

Yelda

29-07-2007, 16:58

[OOC: I don't suppose it would help to remind everyone that a two-story drop (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Headquarters#Ground_Floor) isn't usually fatal? ;)]
OOC: Sometimes I'll RP them landing in something but even if I don't it's assumed that they survive.

Iron Felix

29-07-2007, 17:27

Outside, the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2 (an upgraded version of the Defenestratinator V.1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12307153&postcount=106)) is lumbering up the walkway leading to the main entrance. A flaming individual falls into the vehicle's launching chamber. Thinking quickly, the Destructor Bunny in charge presses the launch button and Biddulph Strathfield is hurled into the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool. With a grinding of gears and clouds of steam billowing, the machine continues on its way and enters the General Assembly.

Twafflonia

29-07-2007, 17:34

[OOC: I don't suppose it would help to remind everyone that a two-story drop isn't usually fatal? ]

OOC: Well, he was also on fire... :p

The Arkbird

29-07-2007, 17:44

Resolution 214 is a repeal, and as such is unrepealable. We will pass over the fatal flaws in its arguments to observe that the honoured representative from the Arkbird appears to be under a misapprehension as to the nature of repeals. Their purpose is to remove legislation from the law books, not to forbid the passing of legislation. The effect of the passage of Resolution 214 was the removal of resolution 149 from the law books, no more, no less; it is most certainly not the same effect as having a resolution that all nations may not be required to have unions. The current state of the UN's law concerning unions is that there isn't any UN law concerning unions one way or another.

On a more personal note, we would like to inform delegates that we are recording with some amusement selected portions of the last day's debate for use should anyone attempt to argue the Reasonable Nation Theory with us again.

Hamilton bows and walks away, only to be replaced by an Asian looking individual.

Our... umm... Glorious... Yes... Glorious... That'll keep me alive. Anyways, our glorious presi-

A dart pierces the Asian's neck as an Arkbird commando walks up to him and whispers something about making sure the microphone is off next time. A clearly nervous English looking man takes the vacated place.

Our president has decided that he shall have a UN delegate so, and I quote, "I can have some people doing that smart talk for me,". So, here I am....

As so succinctly put by the author of Resolution 214, unions undermine Socialist and Communist government. Thus, it is our government's position that this bill shall be thrown out, so that the sons of the Motherlands can continue living in their perver- I mean... Wonderful style of government...

Micheal Toring
The Bureaucratic State of The Arkbird's UN Delegate

Minilla Island

29-07-2007, 17:47

Minilla Island UN Ambassador, Bertram Pinkston rises up to go the podium to address the UN Assembly. However, he stops to give HRH, King Raymond I, his speaking spot. HRH King Raymond I of Minilla Island addresses the Assembly:

Ladies and Gentlemen;

I bring you greetings from the Republic of Minilla Island. We are a nation that prides itself on its freedom and self-determination. We are a nation that is largely self-sufficient with little need to pass the cup for tithe from others. This has been our birthright, our responsibility, since our independence many years ago. We are a nation that honors our past, works at the present, and looks to the future. It is how we are the the nation we are. In order to understand why we take the stance we do, you need to understand our past.

We were once a colony. Those who escaped the penal colonies in the South Pacific came to an Island that they could call home. Like many frontiersmen, they worked at the land, stood by the land, and lived and thrived off the land. We were a small , but thriving colony. However, we lacked the one thing many of those frontiersmen yearned for: The right to live free.

In the summer of our Lord, 1917, there was a war being waged on the other side of the World. However, most people do not know about the Freedom War. Since it was on the South Pacific Isles, nobody knew or cared outside of those of us living there. Our colony, led by the man who would later become King Joseph I, my Great-Grandfather, demanded that we be given the right of self-determination. Outnumbered and outmatched, we fought hard on both the seas and the ground. However, most of these countries tried to suffocate our pleas. To silence us forever. Many of our men went to the seas to protect the homeland, leaving many families with uncertain futures in its wake.

On November 17, the Year of our Lord 1917, a little boy named Steven Walker was playing by the rocks near the shore in what was then the Hamlet of Richmond, witnessed what would be the catalyst for how our nation obtained freedom. He saw a shining light on the largest rock, and like most little boys, he was curious and went to investigate. On the top of the rock was an image of the Blessed Virgin. When he asked who she was, she said, "I came here with a message from God. I am here to quiet the sadness in your heart and to tell you that your father shall return. PLease tell your friend to be here in one weeks time for a special message." With that, the light disappeared.

The boy, in a state of shock at what he heard, but with joy found in his heart, ran to tell all what he saw. Like most people would, they laughed and disbelieved what the 8-year old boy told them. However, some of his peers did believe he saw something. Many of these children were on the brink of starvation due to the blockade and constant shelling of the food supply. They were hopeless and looking for hope.

On November 24th, 1917, 20 children from the Hamlet of Richmond gathered to the rock to see whether or not little Steven Walker was telling the truth. After several hours, some were beginning to doubt his story. However, at 2 PM, a light shined on the same rock with the image of the Blessed Virgin. These 20 children, starving, dirty, barefoot, in rags or naked, nealt on the gorund and crossed themselves. She called to them, "The Lord thy God has heard the cries of your people. Cry not, little ones. The war will soon be over, and the men shall be home. Their sacrifice will not be in vain. For from the wounds of a little one, a new nation shall be born."

Many of these children started reciting the Hail Mary and the Lord's Prayer after the vision faded. However, children being children, some wandered off. One of these was a six-year old girl named Leticia Richardson. This little girl went to pick wildflowers along the coast. However, she would run into three soldiers from a South Pacific invasion force that were setting up guns near the water. These men would commit unspeakable atrocities to this defenseless child. After these soldiers finished with her, they left the poor child for dead. However, by the Almighty Hand of God, she rose from the grasslands. She was battered, broken, and bleeding from the atrocities committed. She crawled to the guns. Normally, the rope used to fire the guns would be too heavy for a child. However, by the grace of God, little Leticia Richardson, Minilla Island's National Hero, would manage to fire the guns four times. And, by the Almighty Hand of God, four South Pacific ships were sunk. This would allow King Joseph and his men the escape route back to the island.

Word of this child's heroism spread throughout the land. King Joseph would arrive to the grasslands, and find the battered child. He would find the rope burn marks on her palms. Not believing what he saw, he looked up in the sky, and found a cloud formation of a crucifix. From that point, the cries of "God Wills It!" would be heard throughout our land. Everyone, including children, took up the cause for freedom. Many children joined with their adult counterparts handling and shooting weapons. The children exclaimed, "If Leticia can do it, why can't I?" On December 20th, less than five weeks after the first vision, Minilla Island achieved its freedom and independence.

Why do I mention this story? I mention it because Minilla Islanders are prepared to fight and die for their freedom and self-determination. By our very nature, we will not allow other to dictate to us without a fight. We have no problem working within the framework of the International Community when it comes to international relations and external order. However, we do have a problem with those who wish to put their own laws that they use for themselves into our internal laws and affairs. It is not their place, nor their right, to dictate to others in this matter. As it is not our right to dictate to those on their internal affairs.

However, what we have seen over the last few days has been frightening. There is a saying from a gentleman named David Mustaine. He would call a body like this the "United Abominations". It is nothing short of an outrage whan a minister that tells a nation if they do not like it to leave the body. That if someone disagrees with them, they get thrown out a window. That members get browbeaten from those who wish to thump their chest showing the world how much they care, even if they are committing more harm than good. That is not an attitude that free men should take.

We have voted against this current resolution. We will vote against any resolution that we feel will deny us, or any other nation, the right to decide what is best for its people. This is a belief we will fight for, go to war for, or die for. We will not allow any action that will spit in the face of all that was sacrificed so we can live free.

My deepest regards to the members of this body who believe in freedom.

HRH King Raymond I
The Republic Minilla Island

The Arkbird

29-07-2007, 17:53

[OOC: Glad to see there's someone else out there who agrees with me, who hasn't been defenestrated yet.]

Twafflonia

29-07-2007, 17:59

Ambassador Strathfield stumbles back into the chamber--carefully stepping around a bunny--dripping wet, charred, and missing a shoe. He catches the tail end of King Raymond's speech as he slips back into his assigned seat.

Iron Felix

29-07-2007, 18:30

The DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2 rolls into position near the center of the General Assembly. Felix grabs a bullhorn and climbs atop the machine.

Comrades, fellow members and those about to be defenestrated! It saddens me that once again we have had to resort to extreme measures when dealing with subversive elements during the public debate of one of our Resolutions. Cdr. Chiang has correctly identified these individuals as Terrorists. Public safety must be maintained. These cretins cannot be allowed to run amok in the general assembly, spreading chaos and disorder in their wake.

I see that some defenestrations have already been carried out. Good! Let the operation now commence in full. I have here a list of the delegations to be defenestrated. Let me remind all participants that not only the ambassadors, but the entire UN staffs of these delegations require defenestration.

The list includes:
Iamloco
Disc Golfing
Citenka - defenestrated
Xenofungus
Eastern Noble
Wylers
Logopia
Govindia
Opendia - defenestrated
Minilla Island
Twafflonia - defenestrated/burned

Now, may I suggest we begin with King Raymond I of Minilla Island who has foolishly chosen to spread his message of hate and terror in these hallowed halls.

The Destructor Bunnies spring into action. King Raymond I and the entire Minilla Island delegation is loaded into the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2 and launched, at a speed just under the planet's escape velocity, out the window.

As always, volunteers are welcome to assist in the operation. Try to keep it orderly and coordinate your defenestrations with the Comrade Bunnies.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

NationStates Jolt Archive

PASSED: UN Labor Relations Act [Official Topic]