Repeal "The Right to Form Unions"

Since Dalimbar hasn't posted the resolution twice in a row and that the vote is likely to be very close and is a very important topic that deserves a debate.

Repeal "The Right to Form Unions"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #149
Proposed by: David6

Description: UN Resolution #149: The Right to Form Unions (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: ASSERTING the rights of workers to form unions and the importance of fair wages,

APPLAUDING the honorable intention of UN Resolution #149 "The Right to Form Unions" to provide protection for all workers in member nations,

HOWEVER REGRETTING that this resolution, through a series of abysmal legislative flaws, creates a system that neither appropriately protects workers nor strikes a proper balance between worker protection and national security, namely in that it:

1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups, thus implementing on an international scale a bias-prone system for an issue that could be better managed, due to the complexity of union-employer relations, on a national scale;

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;

5- DENIES member nations the necessary ability to temporarily suspend or modify the right of emergency services personnel to engage in industrial action in order to promote security and continuity of operations during times of severe unrest, disruption, or war;

THEREFORE CONCLUDING that the resolution in question not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities, but further that it in no way guarantees the fair and just protections of union workers,

NOTING that the repeal of this flawed legislation shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions, but will instead empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #149 "The Right to Form Unions".

Authored by the members of ACCEL

Voting Ends: Mon Mar 5 2007


Original resolution is:

The Right to Form Unions
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: REGRETTING the repeal of UN Resolution #38: The Rights of Labor Unions, and wishing to improve the original resolution,

DETERMINED to provide protection for all workers in all UN member nations,

CONVINCED that this is best provided on a national level through the formation of Unions,

FURTHER CONVINCED that Unions will improve the working conditions and with that production,

The NS UN

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the right for every citizen in a UN member nation to form or join Unions for the purpose of collective representation of workers, and the right of those Unions to establish and join federations and confederations of Trade Unions, both nationally and internationally,

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all workers in all UN member nations to go on strike; employers are allowed to withhold wages of workers while they are on strike, but it is not a reason to fire a worker,

3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;

b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

4. MANDATES that for the workers who are not allowed to go on strike, independent arbitration is provided whose decision shall be carried out by all parties in the conflict,

5. URGES all national governments to have regular talks with representatives from the Unions to keep wages and working conditions at a fair level,

6. AFFIRMS the right of Unions and their national and international organisations to 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; nations have the right to insist on minimum democratic standards within unions,

7. FORBIDS discrimination based on Union-membership where employment is concerned: non-members and members should have equal opportunities in being hired, work assignment, promotion and trainings regardless of Union-membership,

8. DECLARES that Unions must respect national law, and that national laws shall not be made to impair the guarantees provided for in this resolution.

Votes For: 7,577
Votes Against: 5,394

Implemented: Fri Mar 17 2006

I would point out the bolded parts, the resolution is misleading and inaccurate.

Official Topic
 
I have rarely posted in this subforum, but this post is in my capacity as Delegate of the International Democratic Union, rather than as a member of TNP.

The underlying resolution is a replacement resolution authored by one of the most senior UN members from the International Democratic Union, and was vetted through a thorough vetting process by the IDU.

There are in fact several misrepresentations in this repeal proposal. I'm going to poat the primary post by Groot Gouda in opposition to this repeal in the official discussion thread at Jolt. I believe this will verify the problems in this repeal proposal:

Groot Gouda:
I would like to urge everybody to vote against this repeal. It will be a blow for worker's rights, and as we all know unhappy workers are bad for production and bad for the economy.

Originally Posted by David6
1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;
The resolution clearly states:
3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

You may be of the opinion that a strike should not convey any threat. That is what I gather from this point. By doing that you effectively say that a strike should be toothless, so that workers have nothing to fall back to if their employer exploits them.

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;
You can make laws about that, as long as they do not interfere with the right of people to form or join unions.

Or you could create proper laws protecting workers, so they don't need to form or join unions. Up to you. Don't you love the freedom the UN gives you?

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups
It says independent. That means it should not have any bias towards any particular side.

If you fear that that means your firefighters will be able to get a fair pay for a fair day's work without having to go on strike endangering lives, you are right.

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;
Oh please, you can't be serious or you are a poor reader. Millitairy personnel is exempted from the right to strike. Other actions are not mentioned. If your armed forces are threatening national security, you have a problem with your armed forced - not with unions. They will find other ways to overthrow your government.

THEREFORE CONCLUDING that the resolution in question not only provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities,

activities which your people are apparently prone to; as if being able to come up for their rights suddenly makes everybody a terrorist.

but further that it in no way guarantees the fair and just protections of union workers,
Again, you read the resolution poorly. It clearly gives people the right to join or form a union, enabling them to protect their rights as workers against employers, who generally are in a more powerfull position. You need balance. That's what the resolution gave.

NOTING that the repeal of this flawed legislation shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions, but will instead empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,
No, repealing will mean that in the nations where the granted rights are needed the most, will be no longer in place.

Vote against, in the interest of your people and your economy.
Edited necause sometimes it is hard to see the fracking input screen before posting.
 
I'm concerned that the last UN decision was not opened to be voted on by the citizens of this region. It is the Delegate's responsibility to cast his vote in favor of what the majority of this region’s voters says; anything else is a violation of the democracy we so hold dear. That said, if there were authentic circumstances that prevented the Delegate from opening voting on this past resolution, then of course I understand.

I place my vote against this resolution.

La Duchess
 
Clause 4 refers solely to non-strike industrial action.

I would strongly recommend an AYE.
 
1- GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being, or that indirectly endanger civilian lives;

The resolution clearly states:
3. EXEMPTS from the right granted in clause 2:
a. Strikes by personnel of the armed forces;
b. Strikes not authorized by a union;
c. Strikes which directly endanger the life of citizens in a nation, such as but not limited to medical and police personnel;

No. Groot is wrong here. Under "The Right to Form Unions", strikes which indirectly (not directly) endanger the lives of citizens of a nation are legal. This includes, for example, a strike of firefighters, because the fire directly endangers, the firemen would indirectly endanger via inaction. And without the "directly", the firemen could still get a fair day's pay, as they would be able to use work-to-rule or protest, as opposed to striking. Perhaps when civilian lives are at stake, we should at least ALLOW member nations to choose to save them.

2- FAILS to enact a minimum threshold for union membership or set limitations on multiple membership, thereby effectively legalizing all wildcat strikes;
You can make laws about that, as long as they do not interfere with the right of people to form or join unions.

You could not enact these laws because of clauses 6 and 8.

3- FORCES member nations to provide 'independent arbitration' with the unlimited power to control the actions of union workers and employers in all cases in which strikes are prohibited without any assurance of the non-bias of these groups

It says independent, that is true. But if you do some judicial history research, independent arbitration doesn't work especially well...

4- PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule, and further to join violent international federations, which clearly represents a critical threat to national security;

Again, under clauses 1, 6, and 8, national member governments cannot meddle in these affairs. In addition, since the military can unionise internationally, it can support international unions with violent intents. The military can support terrorism legally under "The Right to Form Union

NOTING that the repeal of this flawed legislation shall not require the disbanding of national or international unions, but will instead empower nations to prevent the abuses herein mentioned,

Read "Individual Working Freedoms" and "Universal Bill of Rights."
 
:agree:

Cratiedemo, as a civil rights activist, recently revived NS player (couldn't remember the darn password though), and student in law school votes FOR. Although I admit ^'s arguments for 2-5 may be based on personal opinion, #1 is strong enough that I vote AYE.
 
david, i would wager good money that you are the same as "david6" at Jolt and NS, the sponsor of the current resolution at vote.

The least you could do is admit that up front.


editd to add: And Cratiedemo, I don't think it's a coincidence that you and david show up and register and make your first posts in this thread back-to-back. That really makes these posts credible, you know?
 
I would like to urge the Delegate to support this repeal. Thank you.
 
While everyone is invited to participate in the discussion, I would like to clarify 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.

I encourage both Cratiedemo and Sir Edwin to join the UN so you may have a greater voice in matters of concern to you.

If david is the author of this repeal, his contribution to the discussion is most welcome. I would hope in the future, our esteemed contributors would introduce themselves as such.
 
How does the firefighter example differ from police and medical personnel? Unless striking policemen suddenly start shooting at people, you could argue that harm from their strike is "indirect" as well.
 
I have no intention of responding to such undiplomatic statements.

Now that things are in the clear down on my end, I am pleased to state that my duties of Delegate will be in full swing. I will apologize to the respectable members of this region who feel that I haven't properly represented them. Yes, I haven't. I do realize that. I will not do a sob story or go into details about what has been going on on my end, as frankly that is my own thing. However, the past is past and we must move on together.

I wish to thank EM for opening this thread.
 
Yes, I assumed we all knew I was sponsoring this repeal. I generally prefer to register on forums as david, as opposed to David6. David6 makes me feel like I'm on an assembly line.

As for Cratiedemo, he's my actually visiting cousin. I admit, it really does look suspicious. It is true, however: he did once play NS, he did once reside in TNP. It's not a coincidence: I told him I had a UN resolution at vote, with a close vote, and was curious about his opinion. He decided to try NS for a little while again, and while he was at it I mentioned it would be helpful to state his opinion on the forums. I understand that posting this will probably hurt my somewhat professional (or at least I like to pretend it is) reputation. Just wanted y'all to know that yes, I know this guy in RL, but I"m not an outright liar.

Edit: Just read GBM's post
 
Back
Top