NationStates Jolt Archive

WA Labor Relations Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly, believing that the ability to form and join labor unions is an important factor in assuring proper compensation and adequate working conditions; recognizing that industrial actions are sometimes the only means available for workers to influence management decisions; however, 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; hereby:

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

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers 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 are authorized by a union and 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 strike or industrial action legally authorized by a union.
c. Employers are prohibited from engaging in actions which interfere with the right of workers to engage in strikes, or actions which interfere with the ability to maintain a strike.

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 members of the armed forces, law enforcement personnel, providers of emergency services, and 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, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs. National governments may require that unions operate democratically and may set a minimum percentage of membership for legal recognition of unions, not to exceed 50%+1.

8. Union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Afternoon, y'all. This here's our new proposal. Well, it ain't exactly new. It's a re-workin' of the old UNLRA from The Organization We Ain't Supposed To Mention.

So gather round sisters n' brothers an' join in the struggle. Tell what is good about Comrade Hank an' his proposal. They ain't no end to the road o' revolution, render new services in the struggle agin arrogance and complacency!

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

This proposal has our support we wish the honoured and esteemed delegation of Soviet Arkansas the very best of luck with it.


Yours,

Most agreeable text, but it should be filed under Social Justice. Congratulations for a nice work.

This proposal has our support we wish the honoured and esteemed delegation of Soviet Arkansas the very best of luck with it.


Yours,
Well that's mighty kind of you, Khan of Kashgar. I reckon I ain't ever met no Khan before. I'd like to offer you some of fine union-made corn likker. It'll cure what ails ya an' if ya ain't ill it'll fix yer car.

But first, I gotta ask...

Which side are you on? The workin' class an' the employin' class got nothin' in common you know. You ain't got no part in oppressin' the workers back there in Kashgar, do ya?

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

The workin' class an' the employin' class got nothin' in common you know.
Except, you know, this little detail about them, like, needing each other...

Most agreeable text,
Thankee. Much obliged.
but it should be filed under Social Justice.
Now hold on a second. If'n I ain't mistaken a Social Justice resolution oughta' require some kinda government spendin' or taxation. This'n just establishes a right. It don't set up no labor board or require nations to have a Dee-partment o Labor or anythin' like that.

Here's what the rules says:

Free Trade
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Social Justice
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all WA member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all WA member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.
This discussion came up durin' the draftin' of UNLRA. It was agreed by everone involved that it oughta' be a Human Rights resolution.

Congratulations for a nice work.
Agin, thankee. Have some corn likker'.

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

Recognizing rights....establishing rights...fair notice?

Arrr, we can't be expected to be supporting such an ill fated attempt to be granting rights to laborers. Aye, we can't even be expecting to grant them to citizens. But seein' as we not be having any form of industry, other than making rum and seekin' pleasruable company, we be havin' no need to be votin' at all on this.

Aye, we be abstaining?

But seein' as we not be having any form of industry, other than making rum and seekin' pleasruable company, we be havin' no need to be votin' at all on this. Ah, you say that now, but what if your "pleasurable company" went on strike? It'd be a pretty serious matter then, wouldn't it matey? You wouldn't want to force your hardened, gritty swabbies to search for pleasure to the "aft", if you know what I mean.

Aye, we be abstaining?That has to be the first time a pirate said he'd be abstaining from something ;)

Except, you know, this little detail about them, like, needing each other...
Friend, I don't believe I caught yer name. I'm Chairman Hank, pleased to meetcha.

Now I admit that my rhetoricizin' an' sloganeerin' might be a lil' harsh to them that ain't never confronted the reality o the class struggle. I'll try to tone down ma speechifying an' stick to the proposal at hand.

What we're a discussin' here is a proposal to give folks a right to form unions and take part in industrial actions, like strikin'. Would ya' like to do some talkin' about the proposal itself?

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

Ah, you say that now, but what if your "pleasurable company" went on strike?

We'd kill 'em, there be more than enough wenches in the world that want to sail on Captain Dawson's dinghy. I not be having time to hear about how they be wanting to be treated as equals or how share prices be down and they want a cost of living raise. Aye, they be living better than I do!!!

It'd be a pretty serious matter then, wouldn't it matey? You wouldn't want to force your hardened, gritty swabbies to search for pleasure to the "aft", if you know what I mean.

I ought have my men tie you up and keel hauled fer insulting my crew!! It be talk like that that lands your ilk on the bottom of the sea.

That has to be the first time a pirate said he'd be abstaining from something ;)

We'd be voting against, but we be believing that Cap'n Hank is a square cut of a jib, he is. And we not be wanting to 'arbor any grudges. Lest he be wanting to meet his fate on the end of me hook.

Minucular Bob is against this resolution. We have a very strong and powerful economy without union interference. Let other countries decide their own use in this affair.
I am not for it.

We'd kill 'em, there be more than enough wenches in the world that want to sail on Captain Dawson's dinghy. I not be having time to hear about how they be wanting to be treated as equals or how share prices be down and they want a cost of living raise. Aye, they be living better than I do!!!
*closes his ports*

Y'all ain't gonna be shouting "land ho!" in OUR waters!

I don't believe I caught yer name. I'm Chairman Hank, pleased to meetcha.

-snip-

Would ya' like to do some talkin' about the proposal itself?
I'm PC's UN representative, Samual Palleel Jr. (the spitting image of good old pappy himself), and I'd be delighted to sink my teeth into some of the points made in the text.

1. RESOLVES that all WA 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.

-snip-

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs.This is a death sentence to all member nation governments. It's only a matter of time before international unions--which can draw upon immense resources from massive populations of workers, and are protected from any sort of legislative action by national governments as per this bill--bully their way into decimating, revolutionizing and controlling all national businesses and all national governments in all of the WA. There's a market created here, with nations stripped of power to keep it from being abused.

This is exactly why nations need to be involved in the drafting of legislation that governs labor unions' relationship to business in their individual countries. This is exactly why the question of whether, how and under what guidelines "Chipmunk-Mart" workers unionize should be up to provincial and national PC governance--Soviet Arkansas hasn't even heard of "Chipmunk-Mart"! Nor would the international leviathon of a WA-wide union have ever heard of it. Much less would these outside forces understand the details of the business, of the workers or of the society we in PC enjoy.

What right would an enormous international ring of thugs have to overthrow the liberty of PC men, women and children? Why would this international body's actions be sanctioned and protected by this legislation?

I'm PC's UN representative, Samual Palleel Jr. (the spitting image of good old pappy himself), and I'd be delighted to sink my teeth into some of the points made in the text.
How do. I heared tell of yore pappy an' his work in The Organization We Ain't Supposed To Mention.

This is a death sentence to all member nation governments.
I'm plumb likkered up an' so I might be hearin' things, but I swear I thought you said "This is a death sentence to all member nation governments."

What right would an enormous international ring of thugs have to overthrow the liberty of PC men, women and children?
An' jes what makes you auto-matickly assume an international union would be made up of thugs? I kin see me an' you is gonna go 'round an' 'round.

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

OOC: I'm sorry, but most of that is patently absurd. There are international unions in RL and I've yet to hear of one bringing down a national government.

I'm sorry, but most of that is patently absurd. There are international unions in RL and I've yet to hear of one bringing down a national government.
RL doesn't have thousands of nations which are forced to allow any national union to enter any international labor federation it likes. So RL nations have the power to keep an international labor union's power within the nation's borders in check, unlike member nations under this proposed legislation.

Under the absolute rights you give unions, it's a pretty simple evolution from local union to mega-international union that could feasibly take over national governments.

Let's say there's a manufacturing union in PC, let's call them the "Team-mates". They decide they could further their quest to fight those evil business owners if they bought up or merged with manufacturing unions in neighboring nations (and in my region alone there are literally THOUSANDS of labor unions they could buy or merge with). PC has no recourse since you've taken away our ability to regulate whether or not my intranational unions joins an international confederation of unions. PC apparently has no say whatsoever in any of the policies of these international labor conglomerates, either. They have a sort of carte blanche under your legislation.

When the Team-mates were just in PC, the government has the manpower, the money, the popular support, the policing force, etc., to ensure the Team-mates don't bully workers, don't just kill bosses they don't like, don't bribe judges, don’t get involved in illegal drugs trade, etc. We can keep it from becoming a gang of thugs with no interest other than their own--ultimately PC has this power because it has bigger guns and more money.

But once the Team-mates start absorbing other unions there's a shift in that power. Suddenly this new international union, Team-mates International Inc. becomes--maybe after the international union becomes twenty nations strong, maybe after fifty, or five hundred--it becomes an entity with more resources than my national government. It can, in practice, do whatever it wants.

Does Team-mates International Inc. want to buy out the other large union in PC, the PC-Service Industry Workers Union? Just did, giving the union bosses fifty times their annual salary in one lump sum. Does Team-mates International Inc. want to buy all the airtime in my nation's television networks? It just did, running anti-businessman, pro-union programming all day long. Does it want to kill some business owners to end a strike, then buy off the judges and police officers never to bring any of the perpetrators to justice? It just did, giving each judge a small island.

See, nobody can regulate Team-mates International Inc. and not just because PC can't, according to your legislation, interfere with its 'freedom' to 'organize activities'. But also because PC can't stop Team-mates International Inc. from becoming a behemoth monster in the first (since joining an international union is the "fundamental right" of PC's national unions). It amounts to opening the door to union monopolies within a nation, and international unions with black-hole-deep coffers.

I say it's destined to spawn thuggery because power corrupts, and the type of immense, almost-absolute power these international unions federations will have compared to puny member nations will corrupt immensely and almost absolutely. I'm sorry I don't just trust the guys with all the money (Team-mates International Inc., in this case) to play by the rules.

Insula Nivea cannot support this act. While we have no problem with allowing workers to assemble in unions, we cannot allow the government to essentially force employers to keep on staff those workers who will not perform the services requested of them when there are others to be had who will. The legitimate power of unions derives from their ability to deny their labor as a group to the employer, not from the government's forcing employers to recognize them.

Employers should, in fact, be free to fire all workers who wish to form unions, but they must be prepared to face the consequence of having no competent workforce left.

*closes his ports*

Y'all ain't gonna be shouting "land ho!" in OUR waters!

And ye think that'll stop thousands of wayward pirates? :p

I'm PC's UN representative,

OOC: What's that suppose to mean to us? :D

The government of Bears Armed is not convinced that -- given the existence of an existing resolution against outright slavery, which also condemns forced labour -- the suggested 'rights' mentioned here are fundamental enough to make this a righful topic for international legislation rather than one that should properly be left to the national or sub-national level instead.
Mind you, our country doesn't really have the sort of economy in which this concept is very relevant, anyway: Most of our workforce (apart from those in the [limited] 'public sector') is either self-employed, involved in businesses that belong to their families or clans, or involved in cooperative ventures with a share of the profits from these.
This being the case we would probably abstain on the matter, rather than actively opposing it, except that we object on principle to the requirement about nations having to allow unions within their territories to join international federations.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Well that's mighty kind of you, Khan of Kashgar. I reckon I ain't ever met no Khan before. I'd like to offer you some of fine union-made corn likker. It'll cure what ails ya an' if ya ain't ill it'll fix yer car.

But first, I gotta ask...

Which side are you on? The workin' class an' the employin' class got nothin' in common you know. You ain't got no part in oppressin' the workers back there in Kashgar, do ya?

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary




Thank you Honoured Chariman, our Ambassador will doubtless be delighted to join you in a "corn likker" and will be anxious to introduce your Excellency to the delights of Begenate should you wish to enjoy one of Urgench's finest hallucinogens.

As to the Honoured Khan's status in the Marxist social scheme, he has worked most of his adult life as an employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an Academic Lawyer and Historian. his title does not imply any temporal power over the Imperial City of Kashgar, indeed none of his titles implies such power. The "New Era" reforms, introduced at the beginning of the current Emperor of Urgench's reign have fully democratised the empire and there remains no vestige of Autocractic or Aristocratic power within Urgench. Merit is the only means of preferment and not birth right.

Unions have existed in Urgench for many centuries, under the alias of "Zurbatim" and have worked for the betterment of the workers in cooperation with an Imperial Government which has always been extremely anxious to be of service to them.

The Noble Khan employs a staff for his homes in Urgench all of whom are unionised ( Zurbatimizh ) and indeed is a member of the Civil Servant's Zurbatim of Urgench, as are all the Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff, including those who work with the honoured Khan in the CSKU's mission to the w.a.

While the Confederated Sublime Khanate cannot pretend to be a workers paradise of the sort envisaged by Karl Marx himself, it is a nation in which poverty has long ago been eradicated and in which comparative poverty is only a notional concept. The living and working standards of Urgench would doubtless have been a matter of wonderment to Marx and Engels et al.


Yours,

Background: The State Department received Ambassador Merrywether's request (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14626535&postcount=11) and have sent a knowledgeable Assistant Secretary, and a representative from the DoH. Yesterday they arrived at the WAHQ on Plummet Airlines, Quintessence of Dust's premium budget carrier (as opposed to Squawk International, Quintessence of Dust's premium budgie carrier). Today Ambassador Merrywether and Dr Monsettier are meeting with them and some aides, briefing them and getting them up to date on things at the WA.

Meanwhile, word of a new labour rights proposal hit the wires when a member of the typing pool emailed her family back home. Word quickly circulated among union activists, who passed on word to an active member of the Federation of Labour Union Representatives Congress (FLURC) who happened to be travelling on the same plane as the new arrivals. In accordance with Quodite health & safety law, all international flights must have a trained owl-wrangler on board in case of emergency, and this one was more than happy to do his bit. With Geoff, the security intern, snoozing at his desk, he crept into the WAGA...

Oi'd loik to thank 'is most venerable 'otbiscuits Mr 'ank for delivering to us this most excellent and admirable piece of leggieslation, and oi'd loik to take this oppartunity to take the floor and speak moi piece in favour of it.

'is most esteemed mcnuggets Mr Palleel 'as got 'isself moighty worked up about all them provisions in this 'ere resarlution, and oi think e's made a good point about these 'ere "union monopolies". Now, see, oi think this 'ere Clause 8 was desoigned to prevent this sort of 'appenstance 'appenstancing, but oi also think the proposal should come roight out and say et: that these 'ere "closed shops" are banned, or at the very least, that nations are allowed to ban "closed shops".

Now, about the idea that these 'ere unions moight become too powarful. Oi think this could be a problem, see, if it's not 'andled roight, and as someone who's spent moi 'ole adult life wrangling owls, see, let me tell you oi know you got to 'andle things roight. So, what oi think is, oi think this, is that this 'ere Clause 2 (c) should also apply to unions. So, roight now, it stops employers from union-busting. But it could also stop members of existing unions from stopping these 'ere young whippersnappers from starting up their own union if'n they don't take a liking to 'ow things is being run. This is 'ow our Sibling'ood began, when the old Quintessential Federation of Owl-Wranglers wasn't doing the roight koind of reprarsenting for us. So, we could add to 2 (c) to make it also mean that union leaders had to respect the roights of their membars.

But, now, see 'ere's where oi don't be following 'is most 'onorable 'otchocolate Mr Palleel, when 'e starts a-railin' and a-thunderin' against these 'ere intarnational unions. "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!" he's a-cryin', and thinking these 'ere intarnational unions will lead to anarchy and sodomy and vexillology. Well, oi don't think this'll be the case at all. First, these 'ere unions still 'ave to respect national laws, and at least in Quintessence of Dust, murdering is still illegal. Second, we've 'ad these 'ere intarnational unions before - twoice!! - under the Unoited Nations, and oi was very proud to be an intarnational delegate at the Intarnational Owl-Wrangling Union Confedaration last year. And oi didn't see any of these 'ere murderings and revolutions and double-parkings!

Oi think the oidea that all workers are secretly blood-crazed maniacs out to overthrow the system is a lot of 'ogwash, and allowing us to organize across national lines is only a sensible recognition of the fact we know what's best for our kind! 'oo knows about the steam gauges on an Owl-Wrangling Oiron - some hoighty-toighty bureaucrat? Some banker with 'is 'at? No, it's us what work in the Wrangling Shops and Wrangling Pits and Steam-Wrangling-Forges.

Oi'd also loik to point out to 'is most estimable powerdrill Mr Palleel that these 'ere corporations been organoizing and outstretching and discombobulating for a long time now, and we got these 'ere "Transnational Corporations" a-yammering and a-clammering about their roights. So whoi shouldn't us workers get the same? If'n you ask me, and oi'm moighty obliged to be 'aving this oppartunity to address you all on the subject, oi think this is only a fair way of balancing these 'ere roights of businesses against these 'ere roights of labour.

-- Alwin Blomqvist
Universal Siblinghood of Industrial & Existential Owl-Wranglers Local #460
Federation of Labour Union Representatives Congress
Quintessence of Dust

<snip> fanciful tale about the dreaded union monster taking over the world </snip>
Feller, that shore was a powerful entertainin' story you tole there. Yessir! It takes a clever e-magination to cook up a yarn like that an' I admire you fer it.

Do you do much fishin'? I bet you got some whopperfied fish stories to tell too!

Thank you Honoured Chariman, our Ambassador will doubtless be delighted to join you in a "corn likker" and will be anxious to introduce your Excellency to the delights of Begenate should you wish to enjoy one of Urgench's finest hallucinogens.
Well that's right nice of you. I ain't shure what this "Begenate" stuff is, but I'll try anythin' once. Or twice. Is it like huffin' gasoline? When me an' my cousin Elmer was young'uns we huffed some gasoline. Elmer like to of went crazy. Claimed he seen Martians, then he yanked off all his clothes an' ran buck naked thru the commune. Climbed up on top a the statue of Marx an' started singin' the Internationale...in Eye-talian. Hell, Elmer don't even speak Eye-talian.

It ain't gonna make me do nothin' like that, is it?

While the Confederated Sublime Khanate cannot pretend to be a workers paradise of the sort envisaged by Karl Marx himself, it is a nation in which poverty has long ago been eradicated and in which comparative poverty is only a notional concept. The living and working standards of Urgench would doubtless have been a matter of wonderment to Marx and Engels et al.
Well now that sounds plum paradisical to me. Hell boy, it don' matter what ya' call it. If y'all done eradicated poverty an' eased the plight o workin' men an' wimmen it's gotta be socialism o some sort. My hat's off to ya.

'is most esteemed mcnuggets Mr Palleel 'as got 'isself moighty worked up about all them provisions in this 'ere resarlution, and oi think e's made a good point about these 'ere "union monopolies". Now, see, oi think this 'ere Clause 8 was desoigned to prevent this sort of 'appenstance 'appenstancing, but oi also think the proposal should come roight out and say et: that these 'ere "closed shops" are banned, or at the very least, that nations are allowed to ban "closed shops".
Well now that's a mighty powerful suggestion ya got there, Brother Alwin. Mighty powerful indeed. Yore right o course, that oughtta' be left up ta national govmints to decide an' we oughtta be more clear in a pointin' that out.

Now, about the idea that these 'ere unions moight become too powarful. Oi think this could be a problem, see, if it's not 'andled roight, and as someone who's spent moi 'ole adult life wrangling owls, see, let me tell you oi know you got to 'andle things roight. So, what oi think is, oi think this, is that this 'ere Clause 2 (c) should also apply to unions. So, roight now, it stops employers from union-busting. But it could also stop members of existing unions from stopping these 'ere young whippersnappers from starting up their own union if'n they don't take a liking to 'ow things is being run. This is 'ow our Sibling'ood began, when the old Quintessential Federation of Owl-Wranglers wasn't doing the roight koind of reprarsenting for us. So, we could add to 2 (c) to make it also mean that union leaders had to respect the roights of their membars.
Yore right agin' Brother Alwin. Union leaders oughtta be be respectin' the rights o their members, jus' the same as employers oughtta haf ta respect their rights.

I'd like ta thank you Brother Alwin fer a pointin' these things out to us. Yore suggestins are a-gonna be implemented in tha next draft.

In Solidarity,
Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

Well that's right nice of you. I ain't shure what this "Begenate" stuff is, but I'll try anythin' once. Or twice. Is it like huffin' gasoline? When me an' my cousin Elmer was young'uns we huffed some gasoline. Elmer like to of went crazy. Claimed he seen Martians, then he yanked off all his clothes an' ran buck naked thru the commune. Climbed up on top a the statue of Marx an' started singin' the Internationale...in Eye-talian. Hell, Elmer don't even speak Eye-talian.

It ain't gonna make me do nothin' like that, is it?


Well now that sounds plum paradisical to me. Hell boy, it don' matter what ya' call it. If y'all done eradicated poverty an' eased the plight o workin' men an' wimmen it's gotta be socialism o some sort. My hat's off to ya.


Well Bengenate might not have the rather extreme and often fatal side effects of "huffing Gasoline" esteemed Chair, and certainly it would be unlikely to cause the kind of unbridled "self expression" you describe your honoured Cousin as having engaged in, but we imagine that were your Excellency to try it he would be much enamoured of it.


Yours,

I done went ahead an' made these here changes:

WA Labor Relations Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

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

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

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

The World Assembly;

1. RESOLVES that all WA 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 WA 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 are authorized by a union and 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 strike or industrial action legally authorized by a union.
c. Employers are prohibited from engaging in actions which interfere with the right of workers to engage in strikes, or actions which interfere with the ability to maintain a strike.
d. Unions must provide their membership with fair and competent representation. Further, union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.

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, organise 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. Furthermore, WA member nations shall reserve the right to determine their own policy on “closed shops”.

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.

Which is gonna make it 74 characters too long. I'm a thinkin' Article 8 could be trimmed down some, an' there may be some way fer me to word Article 2 without addin' that there sub-clause "d". I'll have to study on this a spell.


Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

Fer now I submitted it with Article 8 a readin' like this here:

8. RESERVES to WA member nations the right to determine their own policy on “closed shops” and “right to work” laws.

I'm also a thinkin' that 2.d oughtta be it's own Article. Whatta y'all think?

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

Fer now I submitted it with Article 8 a readin' like this here:
Unfortunately we think this guts Article 8 of most of its power; non-discrimination on union membership really should be spelled out, since we do not think it sits under any other anti-discrimination legislation and is far too easy a tool to deploy to defeat the purpose of unions.

I'm also a thinkin' that 2.d oughtta be it's own Article. Whatta y'all think?
We are inclined to agree, respected chairman. It certainly sits more naturally with article 7 than article 2.

We would have liked to have our industrial relations advisor address the chamber on this matter, but he is on a tea-break at present.

Would this allow governments to set any minimum membership levels for legal recognition of unions?
As I read the current text, its requirement that they exist for the collective representation of their members could be met by having any membership level greater than just one person. Admittedly a very small union almost certainly wouldn't be very effective, but having to allow any two disgruntled employees to form a union and then declare their walkout from work to be a union-authorised strike could arguably be seen as going a bit too far...

Unfortunately we think this guts Article 8 of most of its power; non-discrimination on union membership really should be spelled out, since we do not think it sits under any other anti-discrimination legislation and is far too easy a tool to deploy to defeat the purpose of unions.
This here's jus' a test sub-mission an' I agree with ya, some a that language needs ta be put back in Article 8. I'm a fightin' agin' the dagnabbed character limit though. I reckon I'll hafta look fer some dead wood to cut outta it.


Would this allow governments to set any minimum membership levels for legal recognition of unions?
As I read the current text, its requirement that they exist for the collective representation of their members could be met by having any membership level greater than just one person. Admittedly a very small union almost certainly wouldn't be very effective, but having to allow any two disgruntled employees to form a union and then declare their walkout from work to be a union-authorised strike could arguably be seen as going a bit too far...
I reckon ya got a point there. Wouldn't be fittin' fer jus' one or two fellers ta go an' deeclare theys a union. I'll add some wordin' ta leave the exact percentage required up to member gubbmints.

But TARNATION, that danged ol' character limit's a gonna be a problem. I'll commence ta cuttin' out some a them long fancy words from the o-riginal.

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

I'ma headin' back ta Sov-yet Arkansaw fer a meetin of tha People's Committee fer the Improvement of Outhouse Design. Sorry I cain't stick around fer the rest of the proceedin's.

I reckon it's about time we appointed us an ambassador ta represent us in this here fine establishment anyways. So without further adoo, I'd like y'all to welcome our WA ambassador, Col. Hargus P. Longacres.

An elderly gentleman using a cane walks slowly to the dais. He is dressed head to toe in a white suit, white Stetson hat and western tie. He sports a neatly-trimmed white goatee.

Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the World Assembly. I'm Hargus P. Longacres, attorney at law. For some mighty peculiar reason, my government has seen fit to pull me out of retirement and appoint me ambassador to the WA.

I've been asked to revise and, hopefully, shorten Chairman Hank's fine proposal. I'm afraid this will be a herculean undertakin' since there have been numerous requests for additions to the text and it was close to the character limit anyway. I'll do my best though and will post a revised version once I have one that is to my satisfaction.

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador

1. RESOLVES that all WA 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.
Still, I have reservations, even strong unease, with this clause.

Unless my nation takes some liberties with the words "RECOGNIZE and ENSURE", so my national government retains the right to block national and international unification of unions when it would 1) risk monopolizing labor unions within my nation or 2) risk conflict with national interests abroad, it is a serious no go for PC. Of course, if "RECOGNIZE and ENSURE" doesn't guarantee absolute, non-regulated rights and the type of oversight and regulation I'm talking about is appropriate given this clause, then I'm my worst worries about it are for nothing.

But your connoted connection with the word "fundamental" is kind of off-putting to that interpretation of "RECOGNIZE and ENSURE".

Still, I have reservations, even strong unease, with this clause.

Unless my nation takes some liberties with the words "RECOGNIZE and ENSURE", so my national government retains the right to block national and international unification of unions when it would 1) risk monopolizing labor unions within my nation or 2) risk conflict with national interests abroad, it is a serious no go for PC. Of course, if "RECOGNIZE and ENSURE" doesn't guarantee absolute, non-regulated rights and the type of oversight and regulation I'm talking about is appropriate given this clause, then I'm my worst worries about it are for nothing.

But your connoted connection with the word "fundamental" is kind of off-putting to that interpretation of "RECOGNIZE and ENSURE".

It means exactly what it says, youngster.

"...all WA member states must recognize and ensure.....the right of those unions to establish and join federations and confederations of labor organizations, both nationally and internationally."

If that's gonna be a problem for you then I reckon you'll just have to exercise your rights as a WA member and vote against it. That wordin' will not be changed.

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador

That wordin' will not be changed.

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador
Understood.

One concern:

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

I'm not that sure about. I think government's should have the right to, say, insist that all votes on strike actions should be by private ballot, or insist that union representatives be democratically elected. How about:

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs, excepting in cases of government legislation brought in to ensure that Trades Unions operate democratically

or some such

One concern:

I think government's should have the right to, say, insist that all votes on strike actions should be by private ballot, or insist that union representatives be democratically elected. How about:

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs, excepting in cases of government legislation brought in to ensure that Trades Unions operate democratically

or some such
Good point, I agree.

One concern:



I'm not that sure about. I think government's should have the right to, say, insist that all votes on strike actions should be by private ballot, or insist that union representatives be democratically elected. How about:

7. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs, excepting in cases of government legislation brought in to ensure that Trades Unions operate democratically

or some such

But why? Why should the internal affairs of a union concern anyone except the membership of that union? We don't have laws on the books demandin' that corporations operate democratically. Hell, we don't even require nations to operate democratically.

Don't take offense, good sir. I'm not sayin' I won't use your wordin'. It doesn't make that much difference to me an' all things bein' equal I suppose I would rather unions operate democratically. Not sure I'd go to the trouble of legislatin' on it though.

I'm just curious, why is this important when it isn't important to require nations an' corporations to be democratic?

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador

Here's a new draft for y'all to peruse:

The World Assembly, 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; however, 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: hereby:

1. RESOLVES that all WA 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 international unions and federations of labor organizations both nationally and internationally.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all WA 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 are authorized by a union and 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 strike or industrial action legally authorized by a union.
c. Employers are prohibited from engaging in actions which interfere with the right of workers to engage in strikes, or actions which interfere with the ability to maintain a strike.

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, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs. National governments may, however, require that unions operate democratically and may set a minimum percentage of membership for legal recognition of unions, not to exceed 50%+1.

8. Unions must provide their membership with fair and competent representation. Further, union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.

9. 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. WA member nations shall reserve the right to determine their own policy on “closed shops”.

10. 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.

Changing the preamble to paragraph style saves a great deal of space. I believe I have highlighted all of the changes in red. I'd like to ask y'all to look it over carefully for mistakes. My eyes ain't as good as they used to be and I don't trust ma' clerks.

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador

For a variety of (mostly) political reasons, Soviet Arkansas has withdrawn from this fine organization an' this Resolution will now be submitted by proxy.

I bid you all farewell.

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador

For a variety of (mostly) political reasons, Soviet Arkansas has withdrawn from this fine organization an' this Resolution will now be submitted by proxy.

I bid you all farewell.

Col. Hargus P. Longacres
WA Ambassador
That is correct. In exchange for a *cough* considerable sum of money, I will be submitting this proposal. I don't care one way or the other about "labor" relations and Aundotutunagir is not a WA member so will not be affected. However, I am a soldier and when given a task I can be expected to carry it out in a military manner with whatever level of tenacity and brutality is necessary.

Note that Aundotutunagir has not rejoined the WA. I, and my staff I suppose, have been declared a "nation".

Here is the text that has been submitted. I will ask the Soviet Arkansas delegation to edit it into the first post.

WA Labor Relations Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Hiriaurtung Arororugul

Description: The World Assembly, believing that the ability to form and join labor unions is an important factor in assuring proper compensation and adequate working conditions; recognizing that industrial actions are sometimes the only means available for workers to influence management decisions; however, 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; hereby:

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

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers 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 are authorized by a union and 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 strike or industrial action legally authorized by a union.
c. Employers are prohibited from engaging in actions which interfere with the right of workers to engage in strikes, or actions which interfere with the ability to maintain a strike.

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 members of the armed forces, law enforcement personnel, providers of emergency services, and 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, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs. National governments may require that unions operate democratically and may set a minimum percentage of membership for legal recognition of unions, not to exceed 50%+1.

8. Union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Greater Americania and the Nationalist Union opposes any attempt to further Labor Unions.

Greater Americania and the Nationalist Union opposes any attempt to further Labor Unions.
And I oppose any attempt to oppose the furtherment of labor unions.

And I oppose any attempt to oppose the furtherment of labor unions.

Well, it appears we're in opposition to each other.

And I oppose any attempt to oppose the furtherment of labor unions.
See, this is where your argument becomes incorrect. You're advocating fighting for labor unions as entities in and of themselves. The preservation of the labor union is your sole end desire, not the preservation of workers' rights and the furthering of favorable work conditions, wages and benefits. Your statement would favor the furtherment of labor unions even when such would work against the core principles labor unions stand for.

Unions for the sake of unions isn't worker advocacy. It's dogma.

The welfare of the nation is more important than the welfare of individual workers.

See, this is where your argument becomes incorrect. You're advocating fighting for labor unions as an entity in and of themselves. The preservation of the labor union is your sole end desire, not the preservation of workers' rights and the furthering of favorable work conditions, wages and benefits. Your statement would favor the furtherment of labor unions even when such would work against the core principles labor unions stand for.

Unions for the sake of unions isn't worker advocacy. It's dogma.
As I stated earlier, I'm being paid to do this. I will submit anything for money. For enough money I'll argue effectively for it.

Having said that, I find it amusing that you would lecture on "the preservation of workers' rights and the furthering of favorable work conditions, wages and benefits". I started this with an ambivalent attitude about all of this (I was just "doing my job), but the more I see of your anti-union/pro-business attitude and your shady political manoeuvrings, I begin to think unions are probably not that bad.

There are unions in Aundotutunagir. They don't cause any problems as far I am aware (and if they did I would be aware of it). I really never paid that much attention to them, to be honest. Your nation however, or perhaps you yourself ambassador, seem to have a real problem with organized labor. Is that what it is? You just simply don't like unions?

As I stated earlier, I'm being paid to do this. I will submit anything for money. For enough money I'll argue effectively for it.

Having said that, I find it amusing that you would lecture on "the preservation of workers' rights and the furthering of favorable work conditions, wages and benefits". I started this with an ambivalent attitude about all of this (I was just "doing my job), but the more I see of your anti-union/pro-business attitude and your shady political manoeuvrings, I begin to think unions are probably not that bad.

There are unions in Aundotutunagir. They don't cause any problems as far I am aware (and if they did I would be aware of it). I really never paid that much attention to them, to be honest. Your nation however, or perhaps you yourself ambassador, seem to have a real problem with organized labor. Is that what it is? You just simply don't like unions?
Wow, you saved me from debunking your arguments. You're arguments are worth a lot less now, 1) because your nation was "ambivelant" up 'til now, 2) because our opposition to your nation's arguments must mean we "simply don't like unions", and 3) because your arguments are not sincere but motivated by money.

Hm...seems like the only motivation your nation lacks for defending this proposal is an interest in workers' rights.

Whoever's paying you should get his or her money back, because betraying your insincere motives is anything but "effective" argument.

Sam Palleel jr

1) because your nation was "ambivelant" up 'til now,
I never said my nation was ambivalent, I said I was. Pay attention before you start running your mouth.

Sorry for my late reply; I was at the Cobdenia Air Force review. They had zeppelins.

My reason for wanting that included is to allow countries to prevent the possibility of a dictorial union head from foring his members on strike because he wants a new swivel chair

I never said my nation was ambivalent, I said I was. Pay attention before you start running your mouth.

OOC: Easy, tiger. You're drifting closer and closer to ad hominem.

Sorry for my late reply; I was at the Cobdenia Air Force review. They had zeppelins.

My reason for wanting that included is to allow countries to prevent the possibility of a dictorial union head from foring his members on strike because he wants a new swivel chair
The Soviet Arkansan delegation has left the building, I'm afraid. I am in charge of campaigning for the Resolution now, Sir Cyril. I understand your concerns and Article 7 has been altered as follows:

7. AFFIRMS the right of unions and their national and international organisations to be free to draw up their own constitutions and rules, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs. National governments may require that unions operate democratically and may set a minimum percentage of membership for legal recognition of unions, not to exceed 50%+1.
I hope that is satisfactory. My staff was barely able to get it under the character limit as is.

OOC: Easy, tiger. You're drifting closer and closer to ad hominem.
What on earth are you talking about?

"I" as in Hiriaurtung Arororugul, "my nation" as in The People of Aundotutunagir. Of course it was ad hominem, it was directed at you, Sam Palleel jr, in the hopes that you would try to follow the conversation if you intend to speak.

OOC: it was just a friendly reminder, since your character is already on really weak rhetorical ground (having completely whored out is credibility), that adding ad hominem to the list of debate snafus would only further undermine his arguments.

IC: Well, if you, Hiriaurtung Arororugul, have been disinterested in union particulars until now, perhaps you should yield the responsibility of representing your nation in a debate about unions to someone in your nation who is more directly knowledgable of your nations' unions--someone more aware of them than just the fact that there are "no problems" with unions that you're aware of.

Anyway I, Sam Palleel jr., will reiterate our reservations regarding this proposal. It is dogmatic and pro-union even when union actions would undermine workers' rights. It gives such broad powers to unions (and removes so broadly the rights of national governments) that it practically begs union leadership to make decisions at the expense of those under them. Under the recklessly broad strokes of this proposal workers no longer have just one enemy: business. Now workers have two potential enemies: business and union establishment.

I never thought it was possible, but this proposal is actually pro-union, anti-worker.

Sam Palleel jr.

OOC: it was just a friendly reminder, since your character is already on really weak rhetorical ground (having completely whored out is credibility), that adding ad hominem to the list of debate snafus would only further undermine his arguments.
OOC: Oh, so you are now the final authority on what is and is not "weak rhetorical ground"? LOL

IC: Well, if you, Hiriaurtung Arororugul, have been disinterested in union particulars until now, perhaps you should yield the responsibility of representing your nation in a debate about unions to someone in your nation who is more directly knowledgable in your nations' unions, aware of more than the fact that there are just "no problems" with unions that you know of.
And perhaps you should mind your own business. I will run this WA staff until I am relieved of my duties by the government of Aundotutunagir.

Anyway I, Sam Palleel jr., will reiterate our reservations regarding this proposal. It is dogmatic and pro-union even when union actions would undermine workers' rights. It gives such broad powers to unions (and removes so broadly the rights of national governments) that it practically begs union leadership to make decisions at the expense of those under them. Under the recklessly broad strokes of this proposal workers no longer have just one enemy: business. Now workers have two potential enemies: business and union establishment.
Dogmatic and pro-union? Broadly removes the rights of national governments? Are you aware of the extensive drafting process this underwent, not only this WA version but especially the older UN version?

Are you aware that no less than the delegation of Ausserland was a co-author of the UN version and that they signed off on the section you are in a snit about? Would you consider the Ausserlanders "dogmatic and pro-union"? It might do you some good to research the notes from that debate before commenting further. That or ease up on the sodas and sugar.

The Soviet Arkansan delegation has left the building, I'm afraid. I am in charge of campaigning for the Resolution now, Sir Cyril. I understand your concerns and Article 7 has been altered as follows:


I hope that is satisfactory. My staff was barely able to get it under the character limit as is.

That's fine

And perhaps you should mind your own business. I will run this WA staff until I am relieved of my duties by the government of Aundotutunagir. "Mind my own business?" Sam retorted, "It was you, Hiriaurtung Arororugul, that brought up your own ambivalence in the first place! How about you not inject 'your business' into the debate?"

"And yet again you change the subject," Sam responded, pacing about behind the podium. "You put forward Ausserland, a nation that has not responded to our concerns in this debate, as the reason we should stand down.

"What, exactly is Ausserland's response to our reservations? How does that nation explain unions will be kept from choosing administrative interests over workers' interests? And why is Ausserland's alleged approval of the proposal the be all, end all argument? Only a hired gun, with no moral capital on this topic and little direct knowledge of his nations' own unions would think such ethos appeal, combined with misguided personal attacks would make me stop 'running my mouth' about a proposal with such obvious anti-worker effects.

"PC stands by its opposition to this proposal. The opposition we have repeated over and over in this debate. We oppose this pro-union, anti worker proposal."

"And yet again you change the subject," Sam responded, pacing about behind the podium. "You put forward Ausserland, a nation that has not responded to our concerns in this debate, as the reason we should stand down.

"What, exactly is Ausserland's response to our reservations? How does that nation explain unions will be kept from choosing administrative interests over workers' interests? And why is Ausserland's alleged approval of the proposal the be all, end all argument?
No, not a be all, end all argument. I merely thought, incorrectly it turns out, that the work the Ausserlanders put into this might mean something to you. Apparently I was wrong and I'm sorry I brought it up.

Only a hired gun, with no moral capital on this topic...
And just what "moral capital" do you have, little man. Hmmmm? Are you a champion of worker's rights? A well-known advocate of pro-worker legislation? All I've seen out of you is a loud-mouthed antagonism towards organized labor.

I took on this job grudgingly, but the more I listen to you the happier I am that I agreed to take it. So just what "pro-worker" credentials do you possess, boy? Let me guess, you like workers just fine so long as they don't get too uppity and actually decide to organize.

...obvious anti-worker effects.
How is it anti-worker? Better yet, let's first hear your definition of "anti-worker" so we can make sure we're even talking about the same thing.


"PC stands by its opposition to this proposal. The opposition we have repeated over and over in this debate. We oppose this pro-union, anti worker proposal."
If it is so "pro-union, anti worker", why does it contain these provisions:

8. Union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.

9. 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.
It appears that they can leave their union at any time, and furthermore they can't even be forced to join one. Article 9 outlaws closed shops, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

I seem to remember you saying somewhere that you didn't actually oppose the Resolution in its entirety, just the part authorizing international unions and federations. You certainly seem to be opposed to the notion of organized labor in general though if you now consider the entire Resolution "po-union, anti-worker". So which is it? Do you oppose international unions, or just unions in general?

How is it anti-worker?

I seem to remember you saying somewhere that you didn't actually oppose the Resolution in its entirety, just the part authorizing international unions and federations. You certainly seem to be opposed to the notion of organized labor in general though if you now consider the entire Resolution "po-union, anti-worker".
A proposal that protects anti-worker practices is "anti-worker". A proposal whose main thrust is to protect the rights of unions is "pro-union". This proposal protects a lot of important rights of unions (and PC doesn't have any contention with those provisions, including the provision regarding closed shops--which yes we were aware of). However, it is reckless in its provisions regarding intra-national and international union consolidation. There's a legal haven created for union consolidation, including union consolidation when it goes against the interest of workers. That's why this proposal is pro-union, yet anti-worker.

A proposal that protects anti-worker practices is "anti-worker".
Where are the anti-worker practices? And you still haven't defined what you mean by "anti-worker". I can't wait to hear your definition.
A proposal whose main thrust is to protect the rights of unions is "pro-union".
It protects the rights of workers to join and form unions, and also their rights to leave those unions, or not be a member of a union at all. How is that pro-union?

That's why this proposal is pro-union, yet anti-worker.
And if you say that enough it will become truth? Or it is truth simply because you say it?

Where are the anti-worker practices? Giving carte blanche to unions to consolidate intra-nationally and internationally is protecting any consolidation of unions that are not in the workers' interest and, thus such absolute protection of consolidation protects 'anti-worker' consolidations. That protection then is 'anti-worker'.

It protects the rights of workers to join and form unions, and also their rights to leave those unions, or not be a member of a union at all. How is that pro-union?
The proposal disallows nations from prohibiting unions. Under the assumption that some member nations currently prohibit unions, those nations would have to now allow unions. So:

POST-PROPOSAL MEMBER NATIONS WITH UNIONS = 100%
PRE-PROPOSAL MEMBER NATIONS WITH UNIONS = >100%

That's a net increase of unions in the World Assembly.

I hope that illustrates my argument a little better. If I haven't adequately explained how this is "pro-union, yet anti-worker", I'd be happy to discuss any further disagreements or misunderstandings.

Giving carte blanche to unions to consolidate intra-nationally and internationally is protecting any consolidation of unions that are not in the workers' interest and, thus such absolute protection of consolidation protects 'anti-worker' consolidations. That protection then is 'anti-worker'.
But how is that necessarily anti-worker? Perhaps the consolidation would benefit the workers, and if it didn't, workers are guaranteed the right to leave the union if they want. I find your argument about the spectre of international union consolidation silly, but at the same time strangely entertaining. Please, go on some more with this.

The proposal disallows nations from prohibiting unions.
Yes? And?
Under the assumption that some member nations currently prohibit unions, those nations would have to now allow unions. So:

POST-PROPOSAL MEMBER NATIONS WITH UNIONS = 100%
PRE-PROPOSAL MEMBER NATIONS WITH UNIONS = >100%

That's a net increase of unions in the World Assembly.
Very impressive mathematics. And your point is? This is bad...why?

I hope that illustrates my argument a little better. If I haven't adequately explained how this is "pro-union, yet anti-worker", I'd be happy to discuss any further disagreements or misunderstandings.
Oh please, do continue. I don't understand half of your argument and am amused by the other half. If you're that worked up about the impending destruction of civilization at the hands of international unions that can't force their members to remain members and that can't even impose closed shops, preach on! Who am I to tell you to be quiet.

But how is that necessarily anti-worker? Perhaps the consolidation would benefit the workers, and if it didn't, workers are guaranteed the right to leave the union if they want.
I think it's pretty much included in the very language I used that some consolidations would be beneficial to workers (qualifying "any consolidation of unions that are not in the workers' interest" implies there are consolidations that are in the workers' interest). Why should workers have leave the union they helped organize with their own blood, sweat and tears because an administrator with carte blanch from the WA decides on a bad consolidation? Why is the WA hell bent on keeping nations from curtailing bad consolidations in the first place?
Very impressive mathematics. And your point is? This is bad...why?I never said it was bad...that you've misunderstood that (the fact that I don't think a pro-union proposal is bad), makes me really concerned you've misunderstood other really significant portions of my disagreement with this proposal.

And about closed shops. The proposal has the following clause regarding closed shops:8. Union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation. Forming a new union means starting all over with organization, officers, membership, and so forth--working on a union from the ground up. The ex-union worker would be fighting an organization with many more resources than he himself (along with his fight with business). The whole purpose of a union is for a significant enough portion of a work force to be union members. Then industrial action or the threat of industrial action has weight to it. Individual workers' rights to form a new union are compromised by the fact that chances one person disatisfied with leadership in a union will be able to leave it and form an effective alternative union are next to nothing. The chances of organizing an effective alternative union get slightly higher as more and more union members are disatisfied, but so long as it is a minority of workers, there's still little chance to form an effective alternative union. The rights of the minority have no protection under the carte blanche this proposal gives unions to consolidate.

Then there's simply the practicality of power. The cold facts of what happens when you centralize immense sums of money. You get a huge organization with huge resources that will engage in practices that benefit nothing but itself. Given there's an international union confederation with immense resources and you ask a lowly worker if he'd rather put up with its policies that run counter to his interest or go it alone, looking for another union, he's gonna say no. The fact that workers won't leave disfunctional, huge unions and that corruption due to overly centralized power and money will occur is not possible or probable. It's inevitable. Why waste the resources of nations dealing with these inevitable problems when they could avoid it by limiting certain types of centralized consolidation?

And the dangers of ill-advised monsters of organizations being given this absolute freedom to consolidate are not a "spectre", a "whopper" or something I've made up. The inevitability of mobocracy and corruption when proper checks, balances, oversight, etc. are not in place is well documented around the WA. Let me be very clear, PC does not argue that unions are condusive to mobocracy and corruption in and of themselves. But unregulated, unchecked and unbalanced consolidations of unions can very easily lead to that sort of thing (just like unregulated, unchecked or unbalanced mergers of busiensses, or alliances of nations, etc.). It'll lead to a beast too big to handle, too big to fail, and too big to be opposed.

Why should workers have leave the union they helped organize with their own blood, sweat and tears because an administrator with carte blanch from the WA decides on a bad consolidation?
I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that you care one bit about the blood, sweat and tears of the workers. This "pro-worker" rhetoric you have recently adopted is frankly bizarre in light of some of your past statements on this subject.

Why is the WA hell bent on keeping nations from curtailing bad consolidations in the first place?
Why are you hell bent on preventing consolidations? Oh yes, the giant nation killing union robot, I almost forgot about that.

I never said it was bad...that you've misunderstood that (the fact that I don't think a pro-union proposal is bad), makes me really concerned you've misunderstood other really significant portions of my disagreement with this proposal.
Actually I've understood all of your coherent statements very well. It's when you go rambling off about the perils of international unions that you lose me.

And I'm sure you don't think all union proposals are bad. You wrote and submitted one, plus another one that you posted at NSO. What you think is bad is a union proposal that doesn't allow unions to be controlled, weakened and sidelined by pro-business governments. I could have written one, in essence a blocker, that allowed national governments to do exactly as they pleased in regards to labor relations and I bet you would have offered to telegram for it.

And about closed shops. The proposal has the following clause regarding closed shops:8. Union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.
That isn't the Article dealing with closed shops, this one is:

9. 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.


snip the rest, tl;dr
I'm not "debating" this subject with you. I'm merely responding to some of your blather for my own amusement. If you want to continue to recite walls of text, be my guest.

I could have written one, in essence a blocker, that allowed national governments to do exactly as they pleased in regards to labor relations and I bet you would have offered to telegram for it.You act like you know our nation...I find that slightly more funny than I find it pathetic. And I find it very pathetic.


That isn't the Article dealing with closed shops, this one is:9. 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. Sorry, I assumed you bringing were talking about the clause that had something to do with my argument, since Clause #8 is the clause that has to do with union members being allowed to quit their unions if they're dissatisfied. So I copied the wrong clause.

Anyway. I really don't feel the need to restate my disagreement with this proposal, as you've ignored the substance of the argument. Just like your predecessor.

Anyway. I really don't feel the need to restate my disagreement with this proposal, as you've ignored the substance of the argument. Just like your predecessor.
But your argument has been all over the place. You started off saying:

This is a death sentence to all member nation governments. It's only a matter of time before international unions--which can draw upon immense resources from massive populations of workers, and are protected from any sort of legislative action by national governments as per this bill--bully their way into decimating, revolutionizing and controlling all national businesses and all national governments in all of the WA.

And now you've shifted your argument to saying that international unions are inherently, instinctively, predestined to exploit and oppress their members.

So which will it be? A thugocracy whose only purpose is to exploit its members, or a global revolutionary army that will topple national governments and seize control of the WA in the name of its "massive populations of workers"?

So which will it be? A thugocracy whose only purpose is to exploit its members, or a global revolutionary army that will topple national governments and seize control of the WA in the name of its "massive populations of workers"?
Seeing as both iterations of the same concern have been left unaddressed: either one.

Seeing as both iterations of the same concern have been left unaddressed: either one.



In fairness neither is inevitable, and neither is likely. International federations of Unions are rarely if ever able to exercise the kind of terrifying power described by the honoured Ambassador for Powerhungry Chipmunks. Those member states which are already used to dealing with large national federations of labour Unions will know well what handicaps such organisations must overcome in order to achieve coherent action of any very serious kind, and it must be remembered that Unions are not divisible from the workers who form them, especially under the provisions of this statute.


We have no doubt that some states which until now have not recognised labour unions of any kind will face certain political changes should this statute pass, but we are confident that the social benefit and more equal prosperity which would be created by it would contribute to the stability of the societies in question in the long run and would not undermine the ability of member states to order their own affairs to so great an extent as to warrant the panic evinced by the honoured Ambassador for Powerhungry Chipmunks.


Yours,

Seeing as both iterations of the same concern have been left unaddressed: either one.
*sigh* They have both been addressed:
2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers 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 are authorized by a union and do not cause physical harm to persons or property;
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 members of the armed forces, law enforcement personnel, providers of emergency services, and government employees providing essential public services.
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, organise their own administration and activities, and formulate their own programs. National governments may require that unions operate democratically and may set a minimum percentage of membership for legal recognition of unions, not to exceed 50%+1.
8. Union members have the right to form new unions or seek representation from a different union if they feel they are not currently being provided fair and competent representation.
9. 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.
10. 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.
How, in the face of all that, do you see your fanciful scenario playing out?

However, if you feel that international unions require more regulation, regulation at the international level in other words, feel free to pass legislation regulating them. They are, after all, international entities and that would place them squarely in the WA's jurisdiction. I can't for the life of me see why it would be necessary, but if it will make you feel better, start writing.

So, the rival proposal from Powerhungry Chipmunks has been struck down as illegal because the right that it would have recognised national governments as having to block international federation of unions was considered to contradict the 'Freedom of Assembly' resolution.
That being the case, if the right to unionise is covered by 'Freedom of Assembly', does enough of this proposal overlap that earlier resolution for it to be illegal on the grounds of duplication?
Hr'rmm, and thinking further, do any of the restrictions that this proposal would place on unions also contradict 'Freedom of Assembly'? Clause #4, clause #6, or (despite the fact that I personally approve of it) the second half of clause #7?

So, the rival proposal from Powerhungry Chipmunks has been struck down as illegal because the right that it would have recognised national governments as having to block international federation of unions was considered to contradict the 'Freedom of Assembly' resolution.
That being the case, if the right to unionise is covered by 'Freedom of Assembly', does enough of this proposal overlap that earlier resolution for it to be illegal on the grounds of duplication?
Hr'rmm, and thinking further, do any of the restrictions that this proposal would place on unions also contradict 'Freedom of Assembly'? Clause #4, clause #6, or (despite the fact that I personally approve of it) the second half of clause #7?
Why don't you ask for a Mod ruling and lets find out?

Why don't you ask for a Mod ruling and lets find out?OOC: I raised the point about possible duplication in the other proposal's thread after Ardchoille had made the illegality ruling there, and she asked me to explain my concerns over here...

OOC: I raised the point about possible duplication in the other proposal's thread after Ardchoille had made the illegality ruling there, and she asked me to explain my concerns over here...
OOC: I know.

Duplication is a bit harder to completely eliminate than contradiction. For instance, could you pass a "Right to Privacy" resolution that duplicated parts of PRA? I think so. Now obviously you couldn't pass another resolution dealing exclusively with a patient's right to privacy.

As for Articles 4, 6 and 7 contradicting 'Freedom of Assembly', I don't see it. They would still have freedom to assemble, but national governments could regulate the assemblage, in accord with Articles 2 and 3 of 'Freedom of Assembly'. PC's resolution would have allowed governments to ban the assembly outright.

As for Articles 4, 6 and 7 contradicting 'Freedom of Assembly', I don't see it. They would still have freedom to assemble, but national governments could regulate the assemblage, in accord with Articles 2 and 3 of 'Freedom of Assembly'. PC's resolution would have allowed governments to ban the assembly outright.OOC: I'm not entirely convinced, but (especially as I approve of those regulatory powers] I'm not actually going to argue about it.

I'm not sure I agree about contradiction though. I'm not sure that the mention of "Employers" in clause six is allowed under Freedom of Assembly,
OOC: Not sure what you mean. They could still carry out the industrial action, so they wouldn't be prevented from "assembling". I'm not sure a strike is a form of "assembly" anyway. Usually when a facility goes on strike most of the workers just go home while only a few stay behind to walk the picket line.

I'm also not convinced that requiring certain kinds of assembly operate democratically is covered either.
"Freedom of Assembly" doesn't say anything about that though. Requiring them to be democratic doesn't take away their right to assemble.

OOC: Not sure what you mean. They could still carry out the industrial action, so they wouldn't be prevented from "assembling". I'm not sure a strike is a form of "assembly" anyway. Usually when a facility goes on strike most of the workers just go home while only a few stay behind to walk the picket line.

Yeah forget that part, I'm crap at this kind of thing in any case. :p



"Freedom of Assembly" doesn't say anything about that though. Requiring them to be democratic doesn't take away their right to assemble.


If people couldn't assemble in Unions which didn't conform to government specifications of democracy wouldn't that be illegal ?


But hey like I said don't worry too much about it, I'm probably wrong. :)

If people couldn't assemble in Unions which didn't conform to government specifications of democracy wouldn't that be illegal ?
If the government placed such stringent "democratic" specifications on them that they were unable to assemble in any meaningful way, then yes, they would be in violation. But they would be in violation of "Freedom of Assembly", not this Resolution. This one just says that governments "may require that unions operate democratically".

If the government placed such stringent "democratic" specifications on them that they were unable to assemble in any meaningful way, then yes, they would be in violation. But they would be in violation of "Freedom of Assembly", not this Resolution. This one just says that governments "may require that unions operate democratically".


Your quite right of course. :)

PC's resolution would have allowed governments to ban the assembly outright.
No, it would've allowed governments to regulate situations in which one assembly attempts to consolidate itself with another assembly if and when such a consolidation of two assembies would run counter to workers' rights. Both assemblies' individual right to assemble would've been held inviolate.

No, it would've allowed governments to regulate situations in which one assembly attempts to consolidate itself with another assembly if and when such a consolidation of two assembies would run counter to workers' rights. Both assemblies' individual right to assemble would've been held inviolate.
4. Affirms and protects the right of member nations to oversee the international and national confederating of all labor unions within their borders, including the right to disallow confederating when such would be against workers’ interest or, in the case of international confederating, when such would be against national interests;

How, in the face of all that, do you see your fanciful scenario playing out?(1) How do I see the inevitable monopolization of unions occuring? It's a simple question of economics.

Let's go back to the question of an international union confederation that spans 5,000 nations. This international union confederation possesses huge economy of scale. It can provide workers in one nation a veritable Shangri-la while performing industrial action (which in turn means they can last strike longer than other unions), from combined union dues from the 5,000 other nations.

Remember that a worker is selling his efforts (his time, sweat, expertise, etc.) for the highest price. This price it determined by the scarceness of his work and the alternative uses for it. Meaning (1) if there are a lot of workers with similar qualifications and which will produce similar work, he's less scarce of a resource and his work is worth a lower price (almost anyone in PC can work at PcDonalds, as the skill set needed is very low, thus the price rewarded for such labor is very low). And also meaning (2) that if a worker's skill set is in demand by another market, which would give him a higher price, the first market for his work would have to match or exceed that price for labor in order to retain him.

So the moment another union comes in offering an alternative use for a workers' labor which is worth more (his work as a member of local #241 is worth less than his work as part of Teammates International) he has no incentive to stay with his local labor union. Local labor unions would face an impossible task of keeping up with the international competition and since nations have no ability to enact legislation regarding this, local labor unions will quite inevitably become extinct. It's the end result of any unpoliced free market--which in this case is an unpoliced free market of labor unions.

Now, why is that bad? You'll ask me, I'm sure, 'why are you against workers getting paid more'? I'm not. I'm not against workers getting paid the very highest amount their work is worth. However, back when the labor union was local it had vested interest in both the worker and the business meaning the local labor union would cease to exist if it pushed so far with its industrial actions and demands for benefits that it drove the business under. It had a vested interest in the business being profitable. The international union is so immense it has no interest in the local business staying open.

This means an international union leadership, which has no vested interest in the local workers or its business, could very well do things which run counter to the best interest of the workers.

And (2) How do I see the lawlessness that accompanies overly-centralized power coming up?

I really don't need to explain that. Rich people buy off juries (which is illegal, of course, according to national laws); wealthy corporations cover up crimes and atrocities (which are, obviously illegal); drug rings, no matter the level of policing involved still distribute their product contrary to the law.

All these illegal activities are made possible by large amounts of money. It's simply a matter of fact that the more and more money an organization has the less and less it feels obliged to play by the rules. With the monopolies of international unions that this proposal opens the door to and welcomes, such breaking of laws is inevitable. It doesn't matter how often and how fervently the proposal says that the rule of law is to be maintained, it's setting up a situation where that is highly unlikely.

So the solution is to keep unions broken up, separated, localized, and poor?

4. Affirms and protects the right of member nations to oversee the international and national confederating of all labor unions within their borders, including the right to disallow confederating when such would be against workers’ interest or, in the case of international confederating, when such would be against national interests;Yeah, exactly. It allows nations to stop confederation of two unions when such would be against the workers' interest. I think the text it's fairly clear, given the thrust of the preamble, the thrust of the WALULLA, and the meaning of "confederate" given the context.

Concerned about the loss of local control and involvement in labor unions when aggressive consolidation tactics are employed by larger labor unions or international union confederations,

Rejecting corporate-like takeovers, inequitable buyouts and coerced consolidation of labor unions,

2. Condemns any that would abuse local union for personal gain or motivations through corporate-like takeovers, inequitable buyouts and coerced confederation of labor unions;
a. Compiling and studying data from member nations regarding localized union leadership, as well as data regarding consolidation of unions both nationally and internationally,
...
d. Organizing a regular conference on local labor union leadership and labor consolidation;
It's pretty obvious the "confederating" referred to in clause #4 is referring to one union consolidating with another to create a single, larger entity. That's the typical usage of "confederate" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation) with reference to anything political especially with regard to unions (see paragraph 3 in link)

Sorry that you misunderstood it.

Sam Palleel jr.

So the solution is to keep unions broken up, separated, localized, and poor?Just because I disagree with untamed, unchecked, unbalanced and thus unrestrainable international union megapowers, doesn't mean I want unions to be miniscule. Like everything there is a equilibrium, a happy medium, a range of normalcy and optimal productivity--which can include some very large unions. As always, avoiding one extreme (which this proposal fails at doing) is not the same as saying I promote the opposite extreme.

Yeah, exactly. It allows nations to stop confederation of two unions when such would be against the workers' interest. I think the text it's fairly clear, given the thrust of the preamble, the thrust of the WALULLA, and the meaning of "confederate" given the context.


It's pretty obvious the "confederating" referred to in clause #4 is referring to one union consolidating with another to create a single, larger entity. That's the typical usage of "confederate" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation) with reference to anything political especially with regard to unions (see paragraph 3 in link)

Sorry that you misunderstood it.

Sam Palleel jr.
OOC: PC, I'm getting tired of your antics. If you want to discuss your proposal it has its own thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589124). I suggest that would be the proper place to talk about it. Do not clutter this thread with any more posts about your Local Labor Unions proposal.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!
I'll start an At Vote thread in a couple of days. This won't go to vote until early next week.

Congratulations.



Yours,

OOC: PC, I'm getting tired of your antics. If you want to discuss your proposal it has its own thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=589124). I suggest that would be the proper place to talk about it. Do not clutter this thread with any more posts about your Local Labor Unions proposal.
OOC: I was responding to a fallacious comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14672538&postcount=69) you made about my proposal. You invited me to correct you. I did so and then returned to the thread topic: this proposal. When you open the door to a certain avenue of argument, you consent to me walking through that same door to defend my position.

That being said, I agree that the focus of the thread should be this proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14672973&postcount=77). I'm committed to that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14673027&postcount=80) if you are.
I'll start an At Vote thread in a couple of days. This won't go to vote until early next week.OOC: Someone else on the forum will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think typically you just go to "Moderation" and ask the mods to change the thread title and add a sticky.

IC: As expected the proposal has reached quorum. Needless to say, PC intends to vote AGAINST this proposal for its reckless shortsightedness.

Sam Palleel jr.

OOC: I was responding to a fallacious comment (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14672538&postcount=69) you made about my proposal. You invited me to correct you. I did so and then returned to the thread topic: this proposal. When you open the door to a certain avenue of argument, you consent to me walking through that same door to defend my position.
One sentence, in one post, which was a reply to Bears Armed...

And it wasn't fallacious.

OOC: Someone else on the forum will have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think typically you just go to "Moderation" and ask the mods to change the thread title and add a sticky.
No, you start another thread titled "IN QUEUE: WA Labor Relations Act [Official Topic]" with a hilarious poll containing answers which are in no way relevant to the Resolution at vote. Then, once it goes to vote, you go to Moderation and request that it be stickied and retitled "AT VOTE". At that time you may also request that the drafting thread be temporarily locked if that seems necessary.

One sentence, in one post, which was a reply to Bears Armed...

And it wasn't fallacious.OOC:just one post? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14672853&postcount=76) :rolleyes: Funny how it wasn't "thread hijacking" until I demonstrated that your comment was fallacious.

I'm not going to talk about Local Labor Unions proposal in this thread again, but you have no grounds for being "tired of my antics". Put quite simply, you brought it up, then you continued the discussion. And now you're complaining that it's being discussed on the thread.

And now I'm changing the subject.

IC: Sam Palleel turned to an aide. "Any news from International Legal?"
"About what," the aide responded.
"About some sort of legal method, to avoid this tripe from gobbling up all of our nations' unions."
The aides' eyebrows raised to anime-like heights. "You mean noncompliance?"
"No, I mean lying down and saying 'screw me, please!'" Sam pounded his fist on the table. "Of course I'm talking about noncompliance."
"Well," The aide replied sheepishly, "there's always the 'essential services' clause."
"What?"
"Whenever a union consolidation would threaten to monopolize or threatens national interests we would threaten to make them honorary 'government employees' who are providing 'essential public services' to the state--"
"But won't we have to pay them with taxpayer money?"
"--providing 'essential non-governmentally compensated public services'. Clause four of the proposal states that there are not protections for the union in the case of such government employees. Of course, we'll never have to actually go through with it, the point is the threat of 'honorary government employee' status. No union will choose ill-advised consolidate when it means handing control over to the government."
"It's brilliant. Did you get that from International Legal?"
"Thought it up myself," the aide said, smiling ear-to-ear
"Tell whoever you got it from 'thank you'," Sam spat back. "And wipe that brown stuff from your nose."

OOC:just one post? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14672853&postcount=76) :rolleyes: Funny how it wasn't "thread hijacking" until I demonstrated that your comment was fallacious.
edit: OOC: That post was a response to you. Prior to that, the only mention of your proposal was in my response to Bears Armed and I hardly see how you have "demonstrated" to me or anybody else how my statement was fallacious.

I'm not going to talk about Local Labor Unions proposal in this thread again, but you have no grounds for being "tired of my antics". Put quite simply, you brought it up, then you continued the discussion. And now you're complaining that it's being discussed on the thread.
OOC: PC, for the last time, I'm asking you to stop this. Don't respond to this, don't explain why you think you had the right to keep spamming, just....stop. Serious.

And now I'm changing the subject.

IC: Sam Palleel turned to an aide. "Any news from International Legal?"
"About what," the aide responded.
"About some sort of legal method, to avoid this tripe from gobbling up all of our nations' unions."
The aides' eyebrows raised to anime-like heights. "You mean noncompliance?"
"No, I mean lying down and saying 'screw me, please!'" Sam pounded his fist on the table. "Of course I'm talking about noncompliance."
"Well," The aide replied sheepishly, "there's always the 'essential services' clause."
"What?"
"Whenever a union consolidation would threaten to monopolize or threatens national interests we would threaten to make them honorary 'government employees' who are providing 'essential public services' to the state--"
"But won't we have to pay them with taxpayer money?"
"--providing 'essential non-governmentally compensated public services'. Clause four of the proposal states that there are not protections for the union in the case of such government employees. Of course, we'll never have to actually go through with it, the point is the threat of 'honorary government employee' status. No union will choose ill-advised consolidate when it means handing control over to the government."
"It's brilliant. Did you get that from International Legal?"
"Thought it up myself," the aide said, smiling ear-to-ear
"Tell whoever you got it from 'thank you'," Sam spat back. "And wipe that brown stuff from your nose."
IC: Well there you go, you found your loophole. I could have been nice and pointed it out to you earlier but it was more fun watching you ramble on...

...and on....

...and on...

...about our impending peril at the hands of international unions and their army of giant killer proletarian robot zombies.

Of course it really isn't necessary to use the loophole, but you've provided a wealth of entertainment and I hope you will continue to do so in the future. Thanks!

-snip-
Sam cupped his hand around his ear. "Did you hear something?"
The aide cocked his head to the side. "What?"
"Did you hear something? Is there something happening out on the floor?"
Sam hurried out from the PC World Assembly office, knocking over a desk on the way, his aide in tow. They arrived on the World Assembly debate floor out of breath, looking out at the expansive room where sporadic discussion on the new labor proposal continued.
"Is that the representative from Aundotutunagir?" Sam whispered to the aide. "What's he talking about?"
"Loopholes and robot zombies and such...I really dunno what he's talking about. Maybe he's describing some problems in his nation. Or maybe what he sees when he smokes hashish."
"Good thing he couldn't be discussing our conversation, the one about International Legal and the loopholes in the proposal, since it took place in our secure office."
"Don't worry, sir. This guy's just a hired gun. He's just a thug sent to beat up any who oppose the proposal. The representative previously declared he was largely ambivalent to labor unions prior to this debate. I wouldn't pay any attention to him."
"Oh. Okay," Sam replied, seating himself again at the PC's desk. "Whatever."

"Is that the representative from Aundotutunagir?" Sam whispered to the aide. "What's he talking about?"
"Loopholes and robot zombies and such...I really dunno what he's talking about. Maybe he's describing some problems in his nation. Or maybe what he sees when he smokes hashish."
"WHAT!? I have never used hashish! That is an Urgenchi vice, the hateful cannabis weed and its derivatives are not consumed by the People of Aundotutunagir. It is an outrage that you should accuse me of such. I have a mind to ask the Flibbleites for the keys to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V2."

"Good thing he couldn't be discussing our conversation, the one about International Legal and the loopholes in the proposal, since it took place in our secure office."
Hiriaurtung Arororugul looks around, unsure at first what the Powerhungry Chipmunkistanis are talking about. "They think they're in an office?", he thinks to himself. "Good Lord, and they accuse me of using hashish".

"WHAT!? I have never used hashish! That is an Urgenchi vice, the hateful cannabis weed and its derivatives are not consumed by the People of Aundotutunagir. It is an outrage that you should accuse me of such. I have a mind to ask the Flibbleites for the keys to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V2."





Noble General let us not set about the business of naming each other's habits as vices shall we. Our Security Secretariat official tells us that the elderly proprietress of an Aundotutunagirian "Tavern" in our main arctic port of Obdkent, in which many Aundotutunagirian asylum seekers in that city are known to enjoy the "hospitality", has many a tail to tell about secret visits from Golthaindroror of a certain respected diplomatic personage who avails himself of some of her establishment's more... exotic... services.


Apparently these services involve a shockingly corpulent Aundotutunagirian woman with luxurious facial hair who is thought to employ, a selection of cooking utensils, a car battery and a tank of live eels on her loyal clientele

Frankly the whole thing sounds ludicrously impractical, ( especially if it is truly for lower back pain as the esteemed personage is known to claim it to be in his expenses accounts ) but we would hesitate to refer to it as a vice. A deviancy brought on by advanced mental illness maybe, but a vice never.



Yours

"WHAT!? I have never used hashish! That is an Urgenchi vice, the hateful cannabis weed and its derivatives are not consumed by the People of Aundotutunagir. It is an outrage that you should accuse me of such. I have a mind to ask the Flibbleites for the keys to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V2."
Sam stretched out his arm and dangled a set of keys. "I dunno about the DEFENESTRATINATOR V2, but I have the keys to Bob Flibble's car."
His aide gasped, "How'd you score those?"
Sam turned to the aide. "Let's just say that his driver, on a date in the strangers' bar and drunk up to his gills can be talked into just about anything by an attractive PC intern."

an attractive PC intern



Indeed ?


Yours,


;):D

Noble General let us not set about the business of naming each other's habits as vices shall we. Our Security Secretariat official tells us that the elderly proprietress of an Aundotutunagirian "Tavern" in our main arctic port of Obdkent, in which many Aundotutunagirian asylum seekers in that city are known to enjoy the "hospitality", has many a tail to tell about secret visits from Golthaindroror of a certain respected diplomatic personage who avails himself of some of her establishments more... exotic... services.


Apparently these services involve a shockingly corpulent Aundotutunagirian woman with luxurious facial hair who is thought to employ, a selection of cooking utensils, a car battery and a tank of live eels on her loyal clientele

Frankly the whole thing sounds ludicrously impractical, ( especially if it is truly for lower back pain as the esteemed personage is known to claim it to be in his expenses accounts ) but we would hesitate to refer to it as a vice. A deviancy brought on by advanced mental illness maybe, but a vice never.



Yours

OOC: http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

IC: "Well...um...whoever this "diplomatic personage" is, I'm sure he...or she...will...um..be discovered eventually and...er...be removed from his or her...um...government position.

It is outrageous that an Aundotutunagirian diplomat would engage in such filth and furthermore...it is likely a LIE concocted by the so-called "expatriate community" to discredit the People's Government, foment insurrection and undermine Aundotutunagirian society!!!1!!

Thank you for this tip, Mongkha. I am forever indebted to you. I will travel to Obdkent, personally locate the source of these traitorous rumors, and silence it myself."

OOC: http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

IC: "Well...um...whoever this "diplomatic personage" is, I'm sure he...or she...will...um..be discovered eventually and...er...be removed from his or her...um...government position.

It is outrageous that an Aundotutunagirian diplomat would engage in such filth and furthermore...it is likely a LIE concocted by the so-called "expatriate community" to discredit the People's Government, foment insurrection and undermine Aundotutunagirian society!!!1!!

Thank you for this tip, Mongkha. I am forever indebted to you. I will travel to Obdkent, personally locate the source of these traitorous rumors, and silence it myself."


Doubtless the Noble General is correct, and he would know being as he is on such familiar terms with members of that community, indeed so much so that we wouldn't even need to give him directions.


Yours,

The people of Osgarna would like to thank their comrades in Soviet Arkansas for putting together this proposal. It is surely moderate enough that anyone will have trouble voicing objections that make sense, while it still affirms workers' rights.

Some have objected that this will cause international unions to gain huge amounts of power and eclipse governments and businesses alike. This is the objection of someone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and keeping workers in their state of wage slavery. To paraphrase Humboldt, the wage-earner must throw himself at the rich man's feet and beg him to be allowed to enrich him. He is driven by need to do this and has no power to request his due. How can the working people of one nation demand their due if people in other nations will work for their employers without objection? Do they not deserve pay of equal value to their work?

In capitalist nations the businessman has this absolute power you speak of. The businessman grows richer as the wage-earner is impoverished. Soon, the businessman is rich enough to control politics and can gain, with his wealthy brethren, control of the state.

Thus, if the worker is not protected what we see is not democracy but something more like feudalism. I would urge stricter controls than this legislation lays out, but compromises are necessary for progress.

Sam stretched out his arm and dangled a set of keys. "I dunno about the DEFENESTRATINATOR V2, but I have the keys to Bob Flibble's car."
His aide gasped, "How'd you score those?"
Sam turned to the aide. "Let's just say that his driver, on a date in the strangers' bar and drunk up to his gills can be talked into just about anything by an attractive PC intern."

That's not possible, First off, my car is back in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites. Secondly, I don't have a driver.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So, the rival proposal from Powerhungry Chipmunks has been struck down as illegal because the right that it would have recognised national governments as having to block international federation of unions was considered to contradict the 'Freedom of Assembly' resolution.
That being the case, if the right to unionise is covered by 'Freedom of Assembly', does enough of this proposal overlap that earlier resolution for it to be illegal on the grounds of duplication?
Hr'rmm, and thinking further, do any of the restrictions that this proposal would place on unions also contradict 'Freedom of Assembly'? Clause #4, clause #6, or (despite the fact that I personally approve of it) the second half of clause #7?

Thanks for putting this over here, Bears Armed. I didn't want to clutter up the other thread with discussion of this one, but I did need to comment on what might be considered duplication.

I don't think it's duplication. FoA established the principles that protect assembly. This proposal applies those principles to a specific situation -- someone writing a proposal about, say, religion, would have different ways of specifying how FoA would apply in their legislation.

As for #6 and #7, while an anti-union authority might try to finagle them, the proposal doesn't give them permission to disobey FoA. #4 comes closer, but I think the "innocent people" FoA clause would apply , in this case. So I don't think this proposal outright contradicts existing legislation.

(1) How do I see the inevitable monopolization of unions occuring? It's a simple question of economics.

Let's go back to the question of an international union confederation that spans 5,000 nations. This international union confederation possesses huge economy of scale. It can provide workers in one nation a veritable Shangri-la while performing industrial action (which in turn means they can last strike longer than other unions), from combined union dues from the 5,000 other nations.
Not if it does so with any great regularity, as a perusal of the WA's finances would demonstrate.

Really, the honoured ambassador should work on his phobia of federation. It is clear that he holds a great many misapprehensions concerning what federation is, misapprehensions that long-standing membership in the confederation that is the World Assembly has failed to correct. In particular it seems that the honoured ambassador has unaccountably failed to note the enormous inertia that organisations of that size possess, all of which mitigates against the kind of efficiency and holding to ransom that he fears.

In short, without specific reasons such as the maritime example provided elsewhere, we don't see what such an enormous organisation has to offer to local unions.

So the moment another union comes in offering an alternative use for a workers' labor which is worth more (his work as a member of local #241 is worth less than his work as part of Teammates International) he has no incentive to stay with his local labor union. Local labor unions would face an impossible task of keeping up with the international competition and since nations have no ability to enact legislation regarding this, local labor unions will quite inevitably become extinct. It's the end result of any unpoliced free market--which in this case is an unpoliced free market of labor unions.
This argument is only plausible if one ignores one of the major details of confederation; the confederates do not cease to exist when they conferedate. The local unions still exist as elements of a federation, in exactly the same way that the nation of Powerhungry Chipmonks stills exists while being a member of the World Assembly. The economic argument is not the only one, since "worth" is a more slippery concept than the honoured ambassador presents. How much does a potential union member value the responsiveness of a local union over the weight of a confederated union, for example?

This means an international union leadership, which has no vested interest in the local workers or its business, could very well do things which run counter to the best interest of the workers.
Which could well be seen as another factor encouraging purely local unions, as many nations continue to remain outside the World Assembly. Surely this undermines your own argument?