NationStates Jolt Archive

This was discussed a bit in the official topic for the proposal. We have come to the conclusion that there are various false statements in the upcoming Repeal "The Rights of Labour Unions". With no new discussion regarding the matter, the fact it is next up for vote, and a concern about the stability of the forums preventing a further delay before officially stating this, I feel the time has come to bring it to official mod attention.

There are three sections I have issues with. The first two, while I'm not positive are necessarily illegal inofthemselves I feel are false arguments.

2) Does not give non-unionized workers protection against union discrimination.

3) Enables unions to appoint, rather than elect, their leaders, rig votes, or perform other such acts harmful to the workers

While, admittedly, these are not addressed directly by the resolution, it does not disallow a nation from doing it. Further, considering that the repeal ends with a pro-National Sovereignty comment regarding the implementation of unions, I find this statement to be contradictory to the attempted repeal - further showing my belief of them being false arguments (whereas a repeal with wish to replace may want to do this because of a lack of amendment abilities but generally believing in the argument).

The other section is incorrect and I feel justifies the deletion of the proposal under an "honest mistake" violation

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of law

The original resolution states clearly:

6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.

thus disallowing "union action outside of the rule of law".

I feel the time has come to bring it to official mod attention.
So use the GHP (http://www.nationstates.net/page=help).

um.....

oops

So use the GHP (http://www.nationstates.net/page=help).
That's fine for blatant violations, but this is the appropriate place for a discussion of the finer points of rule of law.

At first glance, the distinction is too subtle for me. It's a repeal. All it does is repeal. We've already established that repeals can't add new law, and the quoted portion is more a matter of interpretation than a declaration worthy of removing the repeal.

We're not constitutional lawyers, and the NSUN has tons of inherent contradictions that are far more blatant that this one. If you'll pardon the use of phrasing, I'd say this challenge is "not worthy of the UN's consideration". If you want to fight against it's enactment on these technical grounds, feel free to lobby delegates according to the established rules of lobbying. I don't see us acting on this.

Ok, sorry: I didn't mean to stifle debate, but I thought that probably belonged in the discussion thread.

My take on it is: 1 & 2 are points of value judgment, which are just things to be debated. The legal issue is around point 4.

3.Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
...
6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.
7. National laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution. Laws that contradict these guarantees shall not be created or enforced.
These labour organizations may cross national borders, and it is reasonable to expect their operation in countries with different labour laws. The repeal is predicated on the assumption that a wildcat strike is illegal. That would prevent unions from engaging in that action in that nation. But if it's an international organization, then a strike would likely be international. As such, it would be possible for actions to violate non-harmonized national labour laws, but for such violations not to be preventable by particular nations.

I honestly wish that line had been worded differently, but I think the point is sufficiently valid that deletion would be a shame.

4) Allows wildcat strikes, secondary picketing and Union action outside of the rule of lawThe original resolution states clearly:

6. In exercising the rights provided for in this resolution workers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the laws of their nations.While there's something to be said for killing this as being factually wrong (ahem), I don't think it's quite enough to scuttle the Repeal.

There's still a few days on the Proposal at vote, so if a stirring arguement comes up, the Repeal can still be deleted.

Fair enough.