[GA - PASSED] Protecting the Rights of Labour Unions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Protecting the Rights of Labour Unions
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Labour Rights
Proposed by: Junitaki-cho, Co-authored by: Sylh Alanor | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Believing that the ability for workers to advocate for fair and equitable treatment is of vital importance,

Acknowledging the imbalance of power between workers and employers,

Avowing that detailed mandates are necessary to protect workers' rights,

Hereby:

Defines a "labour union" as an entity formed by employees for the purpose of improving pay, benefits, and working conditions;

Requires that labour unions operate autonomously from the employers to which they advocate;

Prohibits employers from:

preventing the formation or independent operation of labour unions,

attempting to control the decisions or operation of labour unions,

barring employees from operating or enrolling in labour unions,

discriminating or retaliating against employees for creating, operating, or enrolling in labour unions,

impeding the ability of labour unions to negotiate over the rights and interests of their enrolled employees, and

refusing to negotiate in good faith with labour unions regarding the interests of their enrolled employees;

Disallows labour unions from:

employing staff who hold conflicts of interest which would compromise negotiations between employers and employees,

acting in the interests of an employer at the expense of the interests or well-being of its enrolled employees,

discouraging or coercing employees from exercising their workers' rights, and

requiring enrolled employees to participate in demonstrations or retaliating against enrolled employees who choose not to; and

Grants exceptions to the above provisions for compliance with prior WA legislation.

Co-authored by Sylh Alanor.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD]For[/TD][TD]Against[/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]9[/TD][TD]12[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]

Protecting the Rights of Labour Unions was passed 11,396 (74.4%) votes to 3,913 (25.6%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
This resolution aims to serve as a replacement to GAR #530 "Fairness In Collective Bargaining", which had previously been repealed due to flawed and vague language within the GAR #530, as well as the inconsistent usage of definitions within GAR #530. This replacement resolution has been pushed forward with an eye to avoiding the mistakes of its predecessor, and expanding upon worker protections.

Recommendation
This replacement resolution expands greatly upon its predecessor in its more specific definitions, prohibitions, and restrictions placed employers and labour unions. Additions such as Article 2 which requires that labour unions operate autonomously from the employers to whom they advocate, Article 3(f) which requires that employers negotiate in good faith with labour unions, and Article 4(d) which prevents labour unions from ordering retaliations against workers who choose not to strike or demonstrate are paramount to mandate using General Assembly legislation. By splitting broad mandates found in GAR #530 in specific conditions and requirements, the replacement resolution also eliminates the vague nature of the mandates in its predecessor.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Protecting The Rights Of Labour Unions".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Locked this thread for now as this proposal has been ruled illegal for a contradiction and duplication of GAR #43.
 
Last edited:
This has been resubmitted after fixing the illegality. Will unlock this when ruled legal unless a Moderator beats me.
 
Against.

Seems like a poorly-written and vague resolution to me in addition to the illegalities issues it has had. It is incredibly vague where it would benefit from going into more detail (eg. specify how labour unions are disallowed from discouraging employees from exercising their rights). There's plenty of room in a resolution, they should use it.

Doesn't help that it appears like the author has been rushing to submission.
 
As of 11:42 PM EST, this proposal has achieved the approvals necessary to enter the formal queue. This will go up for a vote, presuming it is not withdrawn or ruled illegal, at Tuesday's Minor Update.
 
Last edited:
Due to the withdrawal of "Prohibition of Honor Killings", this proposal will take the floor for a vote in approximately 68 minutes at Minor Update.
 
Praetor:
Seems like a poorly-written and vague resolution to me in addition to the illegalities issues it has had. It is incredibly vague where it would benefit from going into more detail (eg. specify how labour unions are disallowed from discouraging employees from exercising their rights). There's plenty of room in a resolution, they should use it.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good point. Section 4(b) creates a very difficult legal position for unions: they'll get sued any time they do much of anything. One could easily imagine that a union saying 'We voted to take the compromise we signed' would get sued by the people who voted against the compromise, leading to constant legal costs. One could also imagine some Chamber of Commerce setting up a pro bono legal representation fund to help people start and fund such suits to 'help labour exercise its rights'.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a tour of the core tenets of Catholic Social Teaching shall we:

1. Life and Dignity of the Human Person
2. Call to Family, Community, and Participation
3. Rights and Responsibilities
4. Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
5. The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
6. Solidarity
7. Care for God's Creation

" The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in Gods creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative." ~USCCB

I understand there may be issues with the proposal, but its passage will raise awareness for this subject and prompt a new better draft to replace it. Also, I believe its good outweighs some of its faults making it an acceptable enforceable law for the time being.

All this considered: FOR

​

 
Imperium Anglorum:
I think this is a good point. Section 4(b) creates a very difficult legal position for unions: they'll get sued any time they do much of anything. One could easily imagine that a union saying 'We voted to take the compromise we signed' would get sued by the people who voted against the compromise, leading to constant legal costs. One could also imagine some Chamber of Commerce setting up a pro bono legal representation fund to help people start and fund such suits to 'help labour exercise its rights'.
Click to expand...
Against, unfortunately, per these concerns.
 
Wonderess:
I understand there may be issues with the proposal, but its passage will raise awareness for this subject and prompt a new better draft to replace it. Also, I believe its good outweighs some of its faults making it an acceptable enforceable law for the time being.
Click to expand...
We literally just repealed the last proposal on unions for flaws that were less major than the one I identified. I think the topic shines very brightly right now; and also, I agree with Praetor, authors shouldn't rush to submission with flawed drafts.

A law that allows unions to be sued into the ground (or the government to say that union activity actually harms workers and therefore they are breaking the law) shouldn't be passed in the first place; raising awareness does little to ensure quality drafting, especially when after the passage of a proposal people normally think 'Good, it's sorted, we're done with this topic now', instead of 'Oh we should repeal what we just did to make way for something better!'. The knee-jerk opposition to instant repeals is very clear.
 
Last edited:
Imperium Anglorum:
We literally just repealed the last proposal on unions for flaws that were less major than the one I identified. I think the topic shines very brightly right now; and also, I agree with Praetor, authors shouldn't rush to submission with flawed drafts.

A law that allows unions to be sued into the ground (or the government to say that union activity actually harms workers and therefore they are breaking the law) shouldn't be passed in the first place; raising awareness does little to ensure quality drafting, especially when after the passage of a proposal people normally think 'Good, it's sorted, we're done with this topic now', instead of 'Oh we should repeal what we just did to make way for something better!'. The knee-jerk opposition to instant repeals is very clear.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how you stop incessant suing legally. People within a union who decide to begin a vendetta against an organization will find something to sue for. Obviously that clause is keeping the union from becoming corrupt in its aims by being a mere pro employer front. The issue of suit standing is the domain of the judge in that case who can deal with validity.
 
Strongly against. I support right-to-work and I am against collective bargaining. (There are 25 million rather dull PHDs not to say 70 million politicians arguing on both sides of this around the world, so I will not go into the actual policy arguments here).
 
Imperium Anglorum:
I think this is a good point. Section 4(b) creates a very difficult legal position for unions: they'll get sued any time they do much of anything. One could easily imagine that a union saying 'We voted to take the compromise we signed' would get sued by the people who voted against the compromise, leading to constant legal costs. One could also imagine some Chamber of Commerce setting up a pro bono legal representation fund to help people start and fund such suits to 'help labour exercise its rights'.
Click to expand...
You don't need a pro bono legal representation fund - there are plenty of employers who will donate to bust a union.
 
Last edited:
Praetor:
Seems like a poorly-written and vague resolution to me in addition to the illegalities issues it has had. It is incredibly vague where it would benefit from going into more detail (eg. specify how labour unions are disallowed from discouraging employees from exercising their rights). There's plenty of room in a resolution, they should use it.
Click to expand...
Imperium Anglorum:
I think this is a good point. Section 4(b) creates a very difficult legal position for unions: they'll get sued any time they do much of anything. One could easily imagine that a union saying 'We voted to take the compromise we signed' would get sued by the people who voted against the compromise, leading to constant legal costs. One could also imagine some Chamber of Commerce setting up a pro bono legal representation fund to help people start and fund such suits to 'help labour exercise its rights'.
Click to expand...
Jeez you all pointed out a particularly valid point. I was against the original repeal of Cretox's proposal anyways, only voted for because this proposal looked good. Now that you say that, I am going against.
 
Wonderess:
I fail to see how you stop incessant suing legally... The issue of suit standing is the domain of the judge in that case who can deal with validity.
Click to expand...
By not creating rights of action or by limiting the scope of existing rights of action. We have a whole category for this in the GA: tort reform. These kinds of bars are common in real world law. Eg War Damage Act 1965 s 1 (UK) (retroactively abolishing any compensation for claims against the Crown for activities legally undertaken during war); Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act 2014, Pub L 113-179 (US) (automatically dismissing any cases against the Gun Lake Trust); 47 USC s 230 (US) (immunising providers of computer services from liability for 'any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict[] material that the provider or user considers to be[] objectionable').

Standing is a different matter that has to do with whether the claimant is permitted to bring a claim, not whether the claim itself is invalid.

simone_republic:
You don't need a pro bono legal representation fund - there are plenty of employers who will donate to bust a union.
Click to expand...
I brought up an indirect funding mechanism because the obvious counter-point to employers donating directly to bankrupt unions under legal fees is 'bar their donations'. Barring the donations doesn't work. It is the cause of action itself which creates the issue; it cannot be worked around.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top