NationStates Jolt Archive

Local Labor Unions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognizing the critical role labor unions have played in protecting workers’ rights and negotiating equitable treatment, working conditions, wages, and benefits for workers,

Remembering notable World Assembly documents that support workers’ rights, such as “Restrictions on Child Labor”, “Workplace Safety Standards Act”, “Living Wage Act”, and “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking”,

Recognizing labor unions can best represent workers when local involvement in leadership is emphasized, noting that workers benefit from an increased sense of ownership, more open collaboration, greater negotiating power, and lower union fees through local union leadership,

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,

Committed to local involvement and leadership of labor unions for the furtherment of workers’ rights everywhere:

1. Encourages labor unions to involve local workers in union leadership to the greatest extent possible;

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;

3. Organizes the “World Assembly Labor Union Local Leadership Agency” (WALULLA) and assigns it with the following:
a. Compiling and studying data from member nations regarding localized union leadership, as well as data regarding consolidation of unions both nationally and internationally,
b. Publishing findings as well as recommendations for equitable policy to balance the demands of labor and management and also policy that promotes local governance of labor unions,
c. Encouraging the equitable representation of all workers that are at risk of abuse through direct appeal to member nations,
d. Organizing a regular conference on local labor union leadership and labor consolidation;

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;

5. Protects the right of labor unions that are disallowed from confederating to notify the WALULLA, and additionally assigns the WALULLA to publish accounts of abuse by member nation oversight in this regard. Contradicts "Freedom of Assembly":
1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

Contradicts "Freedom of Assembly":

Not that this is the right thread for this discussion, nor for that matter does my opinion really matter, but I would disagree with your assessment. I would not consider a labor union an individual, and thus, not being an individual, it could not possess any rights to begin with (I might get shot for saying this, but there is no such thing as collective rights).

On another technicality, I don't see any language that would bar individual workers from choosing to join any international confederacy of their choosing, only the ability to prohibit local unions from joining as a collective action.

The individuals comprising the union do, however, have freedom of assembly.

Not that this is the right thread for this discussion, nor for that matter does my opinion really matter, but I would disagree with your assessment. I would not consider a labor union an individual, and thus, not being an individual, it could not possess any rights to begin with (I might get shot for saying this, but there is no such thing as collective rights).

On another technicality, I don't see any language that would bar individual workers from choosing to join any international confederacy of their choosing, only the ability to prohibit local unions from joining as a collective action.
You're wrong.

(Puppet of PC, by any chance?)

The individuals comprising the union do, however, have freedom of assembly.
You're right.

This isn't really the place to discuss the illegality of PC's proposal though. It will reach quorum soon and at that point the author, or someone, will start a thread to discuss it in.

It will reach quorum soon ...

No, it won't, because I've just deleted it.

PC, it was because of a detail within a detail. I haven't recorded any proposal warning against your nation because of it. The problem was this:

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;

which I saw as contradicting this:

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

That is, "overseeing" a confederation need not be "an action" infringing on those rights; a government might reasonably ensure that the country's laws were maintained, that no criminal activity (such as threats or violence) was performed, and so on, without taking action that directly infringed the right to assembly.

But "to disallow confederating" is an action directed explicitly against a specific expression of freedom of assembly. A freedom which has already been granted by existing legislation. Thus, contradiction.

I'd suggest you rejig (4) to avoid action and alter (5) to take account of this if you resubmit.

The delegates supporting the proposal were: Approvals: 51 Todd McCloud, Schwagle, Serval Cat, Croteam, Kingsley Bedford, Consaria, Nordavia, PTSF, Sydia, Osea 767, Oscen, -Hellkite-, Isle de Beaulieu, Serialkillerstan, Trektopolis, Letzte Friede, Zurarich, The Artic Republics, Ventei, Zombiedolphins, Qrupil, RodSilvaland, Ille de Utopie, Guerra Dyrenia, Lives Relived, Wanjunia, FunkyEli, Wilkshire, Humankind in eternous, Nicks a douche, Txiniamagna, Tobigrad, Flibblers, Hazestonia, Pusik XII, Lunarstelle, Pointe Noire, Eva Zeisel, Calemor, Achalya Santis, Seranil, Buffett and Colbert, Telmoore, Jey, Ascendas, The Jersey Empire, Brutherford, Archerok, Leslainia, Dragoonina, Bears Armed Mission.

Aundotutunagir, I don't see that it matters, at this stage, whether I Eldalante is a puppet of the author or not. It would be relevant if the debate were on the floor and a puppet was being used deceptively to create an impression of support. But when it's a question of legalities before the main debate, the voice putting the opinion does not devalue the opinion.

No, it won't, because I've just deleted it.
Thank you, and I agree entirely with your assessment and your decision to take action.



Aundotutunagir, I don't see that it matters, at this stage, whether I Eldalante is a puppet of the author or not. It would be relevant if the debate were on the floor and a puppet was being used deceptively to create an impression of support. But when it's a question of legalities before the main debate, the voice putting the opinion does not devalue the opinion.
Thank you for pointing this out. I apologize if I have breached protocol by mentioning my suspicions. You are correct, of course. The identity of the puppet is not important and I should have refrained from mentioning it.

And for the record, no, I am not a puppet of the Honorable PC nation. I just supported the alternate legal viewpoint as a matter of philosophical integrity.

Aside from the point of law, I hate the entire premise of the proposal. Even a regulation masked as protecting trade is still a regulation. But it really doesn't matter since I still haven't decided on WA membership anyway.

And for the record, no, I am not a puppet of the Honorable PC nation. I just supported the alternate legal viewpoint as a matter of philosophical integrity.
Thank you. I am paranoid by nature and assume that Machiavellian intrigue is occurring at all levels of the WA. I will now attempt to have listening devices installed in your office to determine whose puppet you are. No offense.

That is, "overseeing" a confederation need not be "an action" infringing on those rights; a government might reasonably ensure that the country's laws were maintained, that no criminal activity (such as threats or violence) was performed, and so on, without taking action that directly infringed the right to assembly.

But "to disallow confederating" is an action directed explicitly against a specific expression of freedom of assembly. A freedom which has already been granted by existing legislation. Thus, contradiction.

I disagree with its illegality (1) because this proposal refers to unions which are business entities, not individuals whose rights are protected under freedom of assembly and (2) because joining two organizations is not an action protected under "promote, pursue, and express"

First, "Freedom to Assembly" ensures the right of individuals "to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view." Stopping a union (which is a business entity, not an individual and thus not guaranteed any rights under "Freedom of Assembly" in and of itself) from being bought out by another one, or prohibiting one union from joining an international conferederation is not violating individual rights to freely assemble. That nations can disallow unions (which, again, are business entities, not individuals) from consolidation does not contradict individuals right to freely express their viewpoints indivudally and in groups.

Second, "Freedom of Assembly" protects the right of individuals to "promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view." Promotion, pursuit and expression are not equivelant to enactment. Unions are still free to petition (and their individuals are free to promote, pursue, and express their desire to consolidate). (Also if "Freedom of Assembly" does stop business entities from being policed in their enactment of policies, then all member nations are by now ruled by monopolies in every industry since all national anti-trust legislation would be invalid.) Individuals still have the right to join together to "promote, pursue, and express" their goal of consolidation. But nowhere in "Freedom of Assembly" does it guarantee that their promotions, pursuits, and expressions will be granted or realized.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of the intended meaning behind "confederating". Perhaps that was read to refer to individuals "confederating" during industrial actions...that was not the intent. It was to refer to the consolidation of two or more business entities in a way which would be better for those as teh top of the consolidation at the expense of those on the front lines of the union. I can clarify that language so it is clear it is speaking about the stopping of two business entities from joining together when such would present an inequitable situation. But "Freedom of Assembly" gives a level of carte blanche to individuals as far as expression, and as far as collaborating to express. It does not give that same carte blanche to business entities to perform any action which is in line with any "goal, cause, or view" they might have.

And about Clause #3 in "Freedom of Assembly". "Freedom of Assembly" excludes "actions that would cause harm to innocent people" from protection, which is exactly what the argument of this proposal is: that sometimes the consolidation of unions into mega-entities is harmful to workers, making it harder for them to protect their rights. I could also clarify language regarding this point so as to more directly connect the harm over-consolidation does to workers to this exception in "Freedom of Assembly".

So, in sum, "Freedom of Assembly" protects individuals' right to associate and express themselves. It does not, however, protect the right of business entities to act in any way they want. In fact "Freedom of Assembly" explicitly limits the rights of collective entities to things that "would not cause harm to innocent people". This proposal attempts to empower nations to do monitor (and, yes, prohibit at times) just that: something that harms individuals.

EDIT: ANd thank you for preserving the approvals, Ardchoille, :)

Changes in bold.
The World Assembly,

Recognizing the critical role labor unions have played in protecting workers’ rights and negotiating equitable treatment, working conditions, wages, and benefits for workers,

Remembering notable World Assembly documents that support workers’ rights, such as “Restrictions on Child Labor”, “Workplace Safety Standards Act”, “Living Wage Act”, and “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking”,

Recognizing labor unions can best represent workers when local involvement in leadership is emphasized, noting that workers benefit from an increased sense of ownership, more open collaboration, greater negotiating power, and lower union fees through local union leadership,

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,

Recognizing the harmful consequences of such actions to individuals (and remembering “Freedom of Assembly”, a World Assembly notable document that permits actions against just such harmful actions),

Committed to local involvement and leadership of labor unions for the furtherment of workers’ rights everywhere:

1. Encourages labor unions to involve local workers in union leadership to the greatest extent possible;

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;

3. Organizes the “World Assembly Labor Union Local Leadership Agency” (WALULLA) and assigns it with the following:
a. Compiling and studying data from member nations regarding localized union leadership, as well as data regarding consolidation of unions both nationally and internationally,
b. Publishing findings as well as recommendations for equitable policy to balance the demands of labor and management and also policy that promotes local governance of labor unions,
c. Encouraging the equitable representation of all workers that are at risk of abuse through direct appeal to member nations,
d. Organizing a regular conference on local labor union leadership and labor consolidation;

4. Affirms and protects the right of member nations to oversee the international and national consolidation of labor unions within their borders, including the right to prohibit consolidation when such would be harmful to the unions workers’, or, in the case of international consolidation, when such would be harmful to the member nations’ workers’ interests;

5. Protects the right of labor unions that are prohibited from consolidation to notify the WALULLA, and additionally assigns the WALULLA to publish accounts of abuse by member nation oversight in this regard.

This version makes the specific case to fit into clause #3 of "Freedom of Assembly". "Confederating" has been replaced by "consolidation" to be more clear that we're addressing the consolidation of two business entities.

A union is not a business entity. It is more along the lines of a civic group, a fraternal organization or a political party.

A union is not a business entity. It is more along the lines of a civic group, a fraternal organization or a political party.
The whole point of the proposal "Local Labor Unions" is to make certain of that. That is, to prohibit actions (such as business-like mergers which sets up fat-cat union executives not directly interested in workers' rights) which drift a local union from a civic organization to the realm of business entity.

I'm about to head out to the Strangers' Bar for a drink, but I just wanted to say that it seems the major difference of opinion is about international unions, and to a lesser extent the amount of independence unions should have in determining their constitution. If that's the case, then perhaps the way to begin a compromise would be to take the elements of the respective proposals that most agree on - that is, basically protecting the right to form unions and engage in industrial actions. After that part is sorted out, the more contentious issues could be considered.

The whole point of the proposal "Local Labor Unions" is to make certain of that. That is, to prohibit actions (such as business-like mergers which sets up fat-cat union executives not directly interested in workers' rights) which drift a local union from a civic organization to the realm of business entity.
Well no, the whole point of it was to prevent WALRA from being passed with Article 1 intact. The effect of which would have been to ensure that unions remained weak, local entities easily controlled by anti-labor governments.

I'm about to head out to the Strangers' Bar for a drink, but I just wanted to say that it seems the major difference of opinion is about international unions, and to a lesser extent the amount of independence unions should have in determining their constitution. If that's the case, then perhaps the way to begin a compromise would be to take the elements of the respective proposals that most agree on - that is, basically protecting the right to form unions and engage in industrial actions. After that part is sorted out, the more contentious issues could be considered. such is exactly what we attempted 3 different times. But only received dismissive responses from Soviet Arkansas. Such concilliation is obviously not the goal of Soviet Arkansas and his proposal.

such is exactly what we attempted 3 different times. But only received dismissive responses from Soviet Arkansas. Such concilliation is obviously not the goal of Soviet Arkansas and his proposal.
Having read the exchange here in the WA and having read this discussion at NSO, started on Mar 29 2009, 11:33 PM (http://z11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=518&view=getnewpost) it is readily apparent that you had no interest in "compromise" and were operating with an obvious anti-labor agenda.

Then you decided to play hardball by submitting what is, in effect, a blocker designed to prevent WALRA from being submitted as written. Soviet Arkansas doesn't play hardball, but I do. And I subscribe to the theories of Ty Cobb from the mythical land of RL when it comes to baseball.

such is exactly what we attempted 3 different times. But only received dismissive responses from Soviet Arkansas. Such concilliation is obviously not the goal of Soviet Arkansas and his proposal.

Surely the honoured Ambassador cannot deny that in submitting this statute before the labour relations measure proposed by the delegation of Soviet Arkansas they showed a remarkable lack of good faith ?

Besides it would have been bizarre to have voted on this statute in the absence of any w.a. labour relations legislation.

Yours,

Having read the exchange here in the WA and having read this discussion at NSO, started on Mar 29 2009, 11:33 PM (http://z11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=518&view=getnewpost) it is readily apparent that you had no interest in "compromise" and were operating with an obvious anti-labor agenda.
I see the thread at NSO has been moved to a private area of the forum and the link no longer works. It should have been in a private area anyway. Shoddy, shoddy OPSEC.

Surely the honoured Ambassador cannot deny that in submitting this statute before the labour relations measure proposed by the delegation of Soviet Arkansas they showed a remarkable lack of good faith ?
No, of course we can't deny the submission of this proposal and its achievement of quorum prior to the submission of Soviet Arkansas' proposal was outside typical forum decorum. But we do deny that we were required to show consideration after Soviet Arkansas repeatedly refused to engage in debate on the subject. We're not talking about Chairman Hank stating points of view that were seen as inaccurate by our nation. There was no response to our arguments whatsoever.

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.



<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!


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.Sorry, but Chairman Hank (1) acting as if our argument were so outlandish he must have been hearing things (then not attending to the substantive arguments made); (2) calling the follow-up clarification a "whopper" of a story (and, again, not responding to the substantive disagreement), then (3) dismissing our question about the intended interpretation of the disputed wording without even attempting to answer the question (after we, again, repeated the substantive objection our country had with it)--that's not good faith. PC certainly has a responsibility to be direct and in good faith with its proposals that hold viewpoints different from those of others. But Chairman Hank relinquished us of that responsibility when his only responses to our disagreements was to entirely ignore the sunbstantive argument and declare "you'll just have to exercise your rights as a WA member and vote against it".

Sorry, but when you break decorum you consent to responses that are outside decorum

Sam Palleel jr.
PC WA Delegation

Sorry, but when you break decorum you consent to responses that are outside decorum




So the esteemed delegation of Powerhungry Chipmunks thinks that dishonourable conduct is best responded to in kind ?

Whatever the supposed misdemeanors committed by the honoured Chairman Hank, it would seem utterly counterproductive for the esteemed delegation of Powerhungry Chipmunks to resort to underhand tactics and subterfuge.

But we perhaps hold ourselves to a standard of conduct which other delegations do not.


Yours,

So the esteemed delegation of Powerhungry Chipmunks thinks that dishonourable conduct is best responded to in kind ?

No, Soviet Arkansas invited and even directed us to work outside the forum to express our opposition to a particular facet of Soviet Arkansas' proposal, a facet he was completely unwilling to address on the forum. Chairman Hank appealed for us, after dismissing our arguments, to rely on our "rights as a WA member", and one of our rights as a WA member is to submit proposals. Soviet Arkansas could have kept the debate to the forum, but deliberately (and multiple times) refused to do so. If the representative from Soviet Arkansas did not recognize the right of submitting a proposal as one given to each member nation with 2 or more endorsements we suggest he re-read the charter of this organization.

So, no. It wasn't "dishounourable" to take up Chairman Hank's own invitation.

And let's remember that PC does not oppose the labor proposal of Soviet Arkansas on a whole. PC has a concern about one facet of the proposal which PC sees as reckless and shortsighted.

"Local Labor Unions" was submitted with wording addressing only that facet of the proposal, the one facet we tried again and again to address with Chairman Hank on the forum. We remind the Khan that we had every right to submit a more far-reaching proposal which protected every national right in regulating labor organization and consolidation, but we refrained since we only had disagreement with the one facet. That is to say: the issue of monopolizing consolidation.

PC has in the past (and we've been very consistent about this) suspended active opposition to proposals when its specific concerns have been addressed. Had Chairman Hank addressed the concern, the option of a counter proposal certainly never would've been entertained.

Sam Palleel jr.

Very well, honoured Ambassador, as your Excellency sees fit. Neat rationalisations may be found for all manner of behaviour.

We will not press this matter any further.

Yours,

We're sorry the Khan disagrees with our actions. And seeing as similar disagreements between member nations have been overcome in the past, it is our hope that the fact that our two nations don't see eye to eye on this matter will not prohibit us from potentially seeing eye to eye on future matters.

We're sorry the Khan disagrees with our actions. And seeing as similar disagreements between member nations have been overcome in the past, it is our hope that the fact that our two nations don't see eye to eye on this matter will not prohibit us from potentially seeing eye to eye on future matters.



We would have no cause to injure our national interest in the way the honoured Ambassador describes. We see no reason why this disagreement should influence our future interactions with the esteemed delegation of Powerhungry Chipmunks.


Yours sincerely,

No, Soviet Arkansas invited and even directed us to work outside the forum to express our opposition to a particular facet of Soviet Arkansas' proposal, a facet he was completely unwilling to address on the forum.
OOC: And if you don't figure out where the line between IC and OOC is and stay on one side or the other of it I'll have no choice but to put you on ignore. It is impossible to interact with you in any sort of reasonable manner when you refer to a nation as "he". When you do that it is interpreted as an OOC statement referring to the player, not his RPed character(s).

OOC: And if you don't figure out where the line between IC and OOC is and stay on one side or the other of it I'll have no choice but to put you on ignore. It is impossible to interact with you in any sort of reasonable manner when you refer to a nation as "he". When you do that it is interpreted as an OOC statement referring to the player, not his RPed character(s).
OOC: Sorry for the misplaced pronoun. Read it as "they" or "that nation", or "that nation's representative" or "Chairman Hank". It was IC.

In case I make a similar pronoun mistake in the future, I'll make the reading simpler for you. When I'm referring to players, I always say "player", (I do this cuz I hate to assume a player is a "he", when very often a player is a "she").

Ahem, if we may, esteemed delegates who apparently have the collective age of... Can we please get back to the subject at hand before someone decides the bickering is the apparent rule of the day here.

Having now waded (or should that be translated) through the rhetoric of the alternate labor relations act, I prefer the effort that IS THE SUBJECT of this thread. So, with respect to the PC delegate, I offer the following suggestions (while still maintaining his protest about the contradiction of the prior resolution):

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the critical role labor unions have played in protecting workers’ rights and negotiating equitable treatment, working conditions, wages, and benefits for workers,
OK, so I will make a non-germane note. I don't see any way one could reasonably discard this statement, despite the level of kreeping disgust I feel at uttering it.


Remembering notable World Assembly documents that support workers’ rights, such as “Restrictions on Child Labor”, “Workplace Safety Standards Act”, “Living Wage Act”, and “Ban on Slavery and Trafficking”,
I would prefer you rest the argument on the right of free association, but in context of the larger proposal it may cause too much confusion.


Recognizing labor unions can best represent workers when local involvement in leadership is emphasized, noting that workers benefit from an increased sense of ownership, more open collaboration, greater negotiating power, and lower union fees through local union leadership,
Grammar nazi point, but you really should make that two clauses, not one.


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,
Not so much a change to yours, but if you have room perhaps you could add a clause along the lines of "Mindful of the difficulty of any organization simultaneously representing disparate interests" or something, as obviously, workers in Eldalante would have completely different collective bargaining interests (industries here are not required to recognize collective bargaining at the current time) than those in, say PC, where they might instead be widely recognized and thus able to concentrate on promoting safety standards or something. I think a single organization would be incapable of effectively operating in both environments.

Just a suggestion but at any rate, I would give some sort of concrete practical reason as well.


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

Recognizing the harmful consequences of such actions to individuals (and remembering “Freedom of Assembly”, a World Assembly notable document that permits actions against just such harmful actions),

That is a really awkward construction. Perhaps I'm clause happy, but I would use two individual clauses again.


Committed to local involvement and leadership of labor unions for the furtherment of workers’ rights everywhere:

1. Encourages labor unions to involve local workers in union leadership to the greatest extent possible;

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;

3. Organizes the “World Assembly Labor Union Local Leadership Agency” (WALULLA) and assigns it with the following:

Not strictly a content note, buy Walulla? It sounds like a personal name in certain southern regions of my nation, like Mayella-Gene and such.


a. Compiling and studying data from member nations regarding localized union leadership, as well as data regarding consolidation of unions both nationally and internationally,
b. Publishing findings as well as recommendations for equitable policy to balance the demands of labor and management and also policy that promotes local governance of labor unions,
c. Encouraging the equitable representation of all workers that are at risk of abuse through direct appeal to member nations,
d. Organizing a regular conference on local labor union leadership and labor consolidation;

4. Affirms and protects the right of member nations to oversee the international and national consolidation of labor unions within their borders, including the right to prohibit consolidation when such would be harmful to the unions workers’, or, in the case of international consolidation, when such would be harmful to the member nations’ workers’ interests;

Perhaps you could reword enacting clause 4 to something more along the lines of
Protects the power (nations do not have rights, only powers!) of member nations to regulate union activity for the purposes of:
A. Enforcing necessary and proper anti-trust laws
B. Maintaining the rule of law and civil order
C. According to the requirements of national security

I think this weakens the overall effect, but I think it has to proper beneficial effect of maintaining a certain level of national control over appropriate actions. As, for example, Eldalante would generally be willing to subject unions to the international marketplace others have proposed in these halls, but under NO circumstance would we ever allow the workers building our lovely tanks or nuclear weaponry to join some international organization.

On another note, I think doing that would remove any possibility of violating the resolution that shall not be named, as all of those are well known and respected exceptions.

5. Protects the right of labor unions that are prohibited from consolidation to notify the WALULLA, and additionally assigns the WALULLA to publish accounts of abuse by member nation oversight in this regard.

Nothing wrong here as the proposal is currently written. Might need work though if you make any significant changes.

Ahem, if we may, esteemed delegates who apparently have the collective age of... Can we please get back to the subject at hand before someone decides the bickering is the apparent rule of the day here.

Why should today be different from any other day?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Let's clarify a few points re legality:

Whether Powerhungry Chipmunks should have held his proposal back from submission because a parallel proposal had been under discussion for some time is not a legality issue. There are conventions in the WA, and some, such as the Reasonable Nation convention, are widely accepted. Breaking them can be expected to incur RPd opposition. But whether to break them or not remains an RP choice. RP cannot be enforced.

I disagree with its illegality (1) because this proposal refers to unions which are business entities, not individuals whose rights are protected under freedom of assembly

I am not going to accept arguments based on unions being a business entity. Unions are not engaged in the production, distribution or exchange of goods or services for profit. They may operate entities that do so, such as superannuation funds, home loan funds or health insurers. These are subject to whatever business legislation exists nationally or internationally. Their profits may be used to fund union activities, but these bodies are not the union. A union is an industrial organisation. A business "peak council" is an industrial organisation. A professional association is -- often -- an industrial organisation. All may organise financial benefits for their members, but that does not make them business entities.

Unions are composed of individuals. They are the result of individuals assembling. The rights of assembly protect individuals who assemble. You cannot say, "I recognise your right to assemble", then say, "Now you are all assembled, you are not individuals, you are a group, and the right of assembly does not protect groups. Fire!"

(2) because joining two organizations is not an action protected under "promote, pursue, and express"

You accept that individuals may join a small organisation to "promote, pursue and express". You do not accept that the small organisation of individuals may then join other small organisations of individuals to form a big organisation of individuals to continue promoting, pursuing and expressing.

Sorry, won't wash.

Because the NS metaverse is very flexible in time and space, you may, if you wish, assume that every time unions confederate (conjoin, merge, unite, etc), their individual members assemble on the forecourt of the WA building, and all those individual members then form the mega-union, confederacy of unions, or whatever they choose to call it. They remain individuals with rights of assembly, and they choose, as individuals, to assemble in that way.

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of the intended meaning behind "confederating".

No, there wasn't. "Confederate", "consolidate", "join", "unite" or "merge" would all have led me to the same conclusion.

... exactly what the argument of this proposal is: that sometimes the consolidation of unions into mega-entities is harmful to workers, making it harder for them to protect their rights...

And sometimes it isn't. Consider, for example, the RL organisation of maritime unions that acts internationally to support small, weak national (or even workplace) maritime unions in the battle for fair wages and working conditions on "flags of convenience" shipping.

But that's an argument for the floor debate. It didn't decide the proposal's legality. It doesn't matter whether your aim is to protect the innocent people in small local unions from big, bad mega-unions or from big, bad governments. You can't do it by action that would contravene Freedom of Assembly.

This proposal attempts to empower nations to do monitor (and, yes, prohibit at times) just that: something that harms individuals.


Monitoring is observing. Your "monitoring" may be as nitpicking as you like, making life so difficult that it amounts essentially to a prohibition -- which would probably lead to your nation being reported to the WALULLA, if you get this proposal into shape -- but it's not an action. But prohibiting is an action. The freedom of individuals to assemble in a mega- or international union if they so choose is what you are trying to make the object of the verb "prohibit". Prohibiting freedom of assembly is forbidden under Freedom of Assembly. This is the clause on which your submitted resolution crashed. If you submit another resolution which allows governments to take such action, it, too, will crash.

Unions are composed of individuals. They are the result of individuals assembling. The rights of assembly protect individuals who assemble. You cannot say, "I recognise your right to assemble", then say, "Now you are all assembled, you are not individuals, you are a group, and the right of assembly does not protect groups. Fire!"
Obviously. But I didn't say that. I said that a group ("in and of itself") doesn't have the special rights individuals have. Each individual still has his rights, and that's where there'd be protection from someone saying "Fire!" But the group in and of itself isn't protected as if it were an individual "in and of itself".It doesn't matter whether your aim is to protect the innocent people in small local unions from big, bad mega-unions or from big, bad governments. You can't do it by action that would contravene Freedom of Assembly.But that's not what "Freedom of Assembly" says.
3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.
If the call to consolidate two unions is one that would harm innocent workers (which is my contention, that some consolidations harm workers), "Freedom of Assembly" states that the rights of freely assemble are rescinded (or, according to the resolution, never extended in the first place) and there is no protection for such a group.
Prohibiting freedom of assembly is forbidden under Freedom of Assembly. This is the clause on which your submitted resolution crashed. Except that "Freedom of Assembly" states that there is no protection of freedom to assemble when the calls would harm innocent individuals.

If you submit another resolution which allows governments to take such action, it, too, will crash.Obviously. I'm not so dumb as to think that submitting a proposal that does the same thing as a previously deleted proposal won't get it deleted, too. I set forward an altered text to illustrate my point that some modifications would make my argument more clear that some union consolidations harm innocent individuals which means (as per Clause #3 of "Freedom of Assembly") it's not a protected right.

Let's clarify a few points re legality:

*(lengthy comment)*



So if this proposal is illegal for contradicting 'Freedom of Assembly', does that mean that the proposal from Soviet Arkansas should be considered likewise illegal on the grounds of that a significant part of it is effectively duplicating a part of that resolution?

Bears Armed, can't see it at first glance, but put your argument in the drafting thread, let's see where it goes.

PC, I think I understand your argument more fully now, but I still don't agree with it. More later.

Righto. I moved this discussion to this forum, not so you could argue that your existing proposal was legal, but so that I could explain what made me declare it illegal. We've been through the RoA arguments. I also had doubts about a possible breach of the "selective application" rule, and I query your interpretation of "innocent people" in clause 3, holding instead that the people who are deliberately taking part in an action (confederating, for example) are not "innocent" in the "innocent bystander" sense.


Okay, now as to the rewrite, if you choose to; these are my suggestions, not legalisms:

I think you need further definition of what sort of union you are trying to protect or of what sort of unions you are defending against. At the moment it's "small unions good, big unions bad", which makes its application unclear.

For example, do unions cease being "local" when they cover more than one workplace? When the workplaces are in different towns? What if the towns are close together?

Or, when is a union a confederated union? When two single-workplace unions join? Three? Or is it when separate unions representing separate trades or industries in the one town join to establish a permanent Trades Hall or Council to oversee joint actions? When a union for a specific trade in one town joins its counterpart in another? How many towns are too many towns?

Normally you could just go with the assumption that people know what "local" or "confederated" mean, but here it seems to me a central part of your argument, because you are distinguishing between types of unions. If you stuck to mention of one only in the operative clauses --eg, a proposal to protect local unions, without the "confederating" bit -- you could leave it at "local" and let national legislatures define in detail the legal meaning of "local".

I think you should deal with the internal contradictions. The preamble endorses unions in general, but its operative clauses back an individual worker's right to join one sort of union, but (selectively) not another sort of union. To me, this reads like, "You have freedom of religion, provided that it's this religion".