At Vote:Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions" [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
Voting ends Monday, so please get your votes in by Sunday evening.

Repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #38


Proposed by: Leg-ends

Description: UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNISES that many member nations prefer the presence of Labor Unions in their economy.

NOTES that the abolition of all national labor unions would be extremely disastrous to the local economic atmosphere.

NOTES that Resolution #38, "The Right of Labor Unions", has serious flaws for the following reasons:

1) Does not allow the government to limit the scope of unions in areas vital to the well being of the nation, such as the military.

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

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

THEREFORE it is recommended that the each member nation decide on their own legislation concerning the implementation of unions.

REPEALS Resolution #38 "The Right of Labor Unions"
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Direct from the Capital:

The House of Citizens, after taking a vote of its members, does hereby officially give its support for the resolution to formally repeal "The Rights of Labor Unions"  King Henry VI has certified his agreement to this decision so the current stance of the nation is FOR this resolution.

rex7vj.gif

Seal of the King of Ator
Click to expand...
 
Not again..

The resolution could be better worded, but I ask everyone -- what's the price you pay when you repeal this resolution? This is not like any other previous repeal, where the repeal author argued that the bill in question was redundant or irrelevant.

This is merely a badly disguised attempt to make sure governments can crack down or eliminate unions whenever they choose.

AGAINST.
 
This is not like any other previous repeal, where the repeal author argued that the bill in question was redundant or irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Here's a little 101 on Repealing, always support the resolution you are repealing except dislike it for a small or noncontroversial section or element. Thus getting people who like the resolution but have a few issues with it, and people who hate the resolution who could care less what the repeal says.
Thus the fact this repeal doesn't pretend to love the resolution the person has spent hours trying to repeal is not an argument against.

Also, mumbojumbo about it allowing to oppress people is ridiculous. Every region I've seen (including TNP) has nations that purposely do crazy things to their populus (which is their right). I choose not to, and I have never allowed a curb on political and economic rights. But its my choice! Not the UN's...Where did the UN get the power to decide for everybody.

This resolution was made by a group of communists (literally, they had a conference, the orig. writer is Free Soviets) who want the world to follow their economic policies. I find that oppressive.
 
Nova Sardonikker:
Currently against, but I wouldn't mind reading the original res...
Click to expand...
NS Wiki:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #38

The Rights of Labor Unions

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category:  Social Justice
Strength:  Strong 
Proposed By:  Free Soviets

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

  1. All nations must recognize unions formed for the purpose of collective representation of workers.
  2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions, and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.
  3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.
  4. Unions and their national and international organizations shall be free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs.
  5. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, both at the time of entering employment and during the employment relationship.
  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.


    Votes For: 10,158
    Votes Against: 8,228

    Implemented:Mon Nov 24 2003
Click to expand...
 
Sarcodina:
Here's a little 101 on Repealing, always support the resolution you are repealing except dislike it for a small or noncontroversial section or element. Thus getting people who like the resolution but have a few issues with it, and people who hate the resolution who could care less what the repeal says.
Thus the fact this repeal doesn't pretend to love the resolution the person has spent hours trying to repeal is not an argument against.
Click to expand...
Here's a little 101 on making choices..

First of all, it's obvious that the author of a repeal doesn't love the original resolution -- that's why s/he's writing a repeal. My point was that inserting even one line on the good intentions of the proposal would go a long way toward reassuring people that any given repeal isn't performed for ulterior motives other than what the repeal author says. Now many people may not care about this kind of stuff -- that's evident in how many repeals have been passed lately. If repeals are passed, I ask where these people were when the original resolution was being voted on. Let's face it, amongst repeals in the past month or so, some resolutions didn't even DESERVE the repeal author to say "i like the sentiments of the original resolution BUT..."

Secondly, given the fact that someone can write a repeal for ulterior motives, that DOES bring into account what the author states as reason for the repeal. If these reasons do not wash, or if s/he does not bring to light GOOD reasons, then that in itself can be a reason to vote against the repeal, in my opinion. When you're writing a repeal, you're trying to convince them. If you can't do that, no matter how favorable the political climate, no one will give a damn.

Thirdly, I'm sure you find things distasteful with the authors of the original resolution. I however, judge a resolution by its merits and not by who the author is. What I find equally oppressive and hypocritical is the sentiment that the authorship of a resolution has any bearing on which way you will vote.
 
Thanks Ator - didn't realise past res' were on the wiki.

Still against. In fact, even more against.

:offtopic: ?

Is it me, or are repeals like this fundamentally flawed - in that they're intended to replace existing legislation, but with nothing to actually replace it with.

What we need is an amendment to resolutions function...

Edit: :ninja:
 
What if you want Labor Unions to be decided by each nation, not the UN?

I know the author, and he thinks this way...same with me.
Thirdly, I'm sure you find things distasteful with the authors of the original resolution. I however, judge a resolution by its merits and not by who the author is. What I find equally oppressive and hypocritical is the sentiment that the authorship of a resolution has any bearing on which way you will vote.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the original's views, which I am entitled too. I don't judge base on the person, but their resolutions...
First of all, it's obvious that the author of a repeal doesn't love the original resolution -- that's why s/he's writing a repeal. My point was that inserting even one line on the good intentions of the proposal would go a long way toward reassuring people that any given repeal isn't performed for ulterior motives other than what the repeal author says. Now many people may not care about this kind of stuff -- that's evident in how many repeals have been passed lately. If repeals are passed, I ask where these people were when the original resolution was being voted on. Let's face it, amongst repeals in the past month or so, some resolutions didn't even DESERVE the repeal author to say "i like the sentiments of the original resolution BUT..."
Click to expand...
Why do have to like the sentiment of the original? I also think it is being deceitful to put something about how great the original was, if you don't believe it. (as the quote, by me that you commented to, said)

My view, along with others, is that each nation should decide most legislation themselves, and the UN needs to be reformed. There is no guarnteed format to have debate, but it is purely about telegramming. These recent repeals are a revolt against the 100+ resolutions that passed the same way. Once the UN gets cleared out, then we can start a new. Imagine delegates in a parliament like system etc...
 
Sarcodina:
Why do have to like the sentiment of the original? I also think it is being deceitful to put something about how great the original was, if you don't believe it. (as the quote, by me that you commented to, said)
Click to expand...
Again, you miss the point..

I am not encouraging people to say they like a proposal they want to repeal. But frankly, this is the only way that any UN member nation has any assurance that repeals are authored out of good faith. I don't know the author of the repeal, and many people do not. What if some nations believe that that nation simply doesn't like unions? How are we to judge actual intent? We can never truly accurately judge such intent, but I believe repeal authors should state clearly whether they are repealing because of wording, technical issues, or a "true repeal" (because they don't like the concept of a resolution)..

To address your claim that you evaluate things based on merits -- why did you bring up the author of the original resolution's "Communist" leanings?
 
To address your claim that you evaluate things based on merits -- why did you bring up the author of the original resolution's "Communist" leanings?
Click to expand...
I was trying to make the point that the UN is trying to run its nations. By stating that this resolution was written by a group of communists with that intent, I was proving the point.

If I just say the UN is trying to take control of our lives, then people would think I am crazy...not that some do anyways :lol:

I am not encouraging people to say they like a proposal they want to repeal. But frankly, this is the only way that any UN member nation has any assurance that repeals are authored out of good faith.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a contradiction? What if a majority of people like an idea, so the minority can never change things...because they have to admit unpopular thoughts? This is incredibly unfair. Laws can have alterior motives (I mean some people go insane making alterior motives to laws passed), but what it comes down to is good law vs. bad law. Each person might have a different opinion on a matter, but in a democratic format a few ideas will combine for a postive turnout for a formed majority. Your idea is unfair for minority opinions...

I don't know the author of the repeal, and many people do not. What if some nations believe that that nation simply doesn't like unions? How are we to judge actual intent? We can never truly accurately judge such intent, but I believe repeal authors should state clearly whether they are repealing because of wording, technical issues, or a "true repeal" (because they don't like the concept of a resolution)..
Click to expand...
Thus people who don't like labor unions could never win because they would have to say that. It'd be great for people to like them (unions), but screw over the minority...
Also if this original resolution followed your idea, then Free Soviet should of began...
In order to help the proleteriat and fight the fascist bourgeoise (sp?), I, Free Soviets, and the AntiCapitalist Summit (forgot the exact name) ask for this resolution, so people in the UN can be one step closer to a socialist economy.
This would have made it impossible for him to get his ideas out there...that'd be unfair to him.
 
Sarcodina:
If I just say the UN is trying to take control of our lives, then people would think I am crazy...not that some do anyways :lol:
.
Click to expand...
People already say this anyway..


Secondly, what I said is not at all unfair to minority opinions -- it is realistic. I cited the example of previous repeals which went out of their way to compliment the reasoning behind the original resolution when in my mind, those resolutions didn't deserve those kudos. Clearly a strategy of doing this may win some votes over to your side IF you're trying to overthrow a majority opinion. Again, I don't necessarily advocate this if it means repeal authors have to lie. But it DOES illustrate the point that in any system, the minority has to WORK to convince the majority. Opinion cannot and should not change in a puff of wind as it seems to do in the UN -- that relegates all meaningful debate to a mere sideshow. And lest you think that I'm harsh on minority opinions, a brief survey of my other posts here should disabuse you of that notion.

You suggested in an earlier post that nations should manage their own labor unions. Why doesn't the author SAY in that case that he's not against labor unions in general; he just wants to give nations their own management of them? Unless he secretly IS against labor unions. Since you know the author, perhaps you could belatedly tell us the REAL motive behind this proposal instead of debating my approach to how I cast my votes. It is the duty of the people proposing any resolution to convince others, after all.
 
Leg-Ends is not necessarily against Labor Unions, but he believes each nation should decide for itself. For example, an issue can be made representing various views on organized labor for all nations: in and out of the UN.

Opinion cannot and should not change in a puff of wind as it seems to do in the UN -- that relegates all meaningful debate to a mere sideshow.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. It is ridiculous. It appears the UN is based purely on nice titles and telegramming.

Me in a post a few posts back
My view, along with others, is that each nation should decide most legislation themselves, and the UN needs to be reformed. There is no guarnteed format to have debate, but it is purely about telegramming. These recent repeals are a revolt against the 100+ resolutions that passed the same way. Once the UN gets cleared out, then we can start a new. Imagine delegates in a parliament like system etc...
Click to expand...

The UN can only be reformed if it appears people want it to be. By supporting repeals and not new resolutions, it is showing the UN has become defunct and in need of change.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top