NationStates

“Why is clause 2 so sweeping in its prohibition of predispute arbitration agreements? Surely applying the criteria in clause 3ai to 3aiv to these agreements would be sufficient in equalising the balance of power between employers and employees?”

Kenmoria wrote:“Why is clause 2 so sweeping in its prohibition of predispute arbitration agreements? Surely applying the criteria in clause 3ai to 3aiv to these agreements would be sufficient in equalising the balance of power between employers and employees?”

"You make a good point. 3ai in particular already achieves much of this resolution's goal."

Edit: Made the appropriate changes.

Cretox State wrote:OOC: The proposal prevents workers from being coerced into signing away their right to seek legal action

OOC: At the risk of sounding like a broken record, didn't we just pass that resolution?

and prohibits retaliation for taking legal action. This is how the proposal ensures access to the legal system.

How? I mean, I get that those are good things, but what does that have to do with access to the legal system? Access to legal system would be more like guidance to the jungle of Legalese bureaucracy, or providing them with access to legal counseling when necessary, etc.

This proposal protects workers from being coerced into signing away their legal rights

Didn't we just pass that resolution? What new does this add to this particular aspect? Remember that the yellow fox contracts are forbidden by an even earlier resolution.

(indirectly; workers can sue you if you illegally exploit them by, oh say, forcing them to handle toxic substances with no protection).

...why? I mean, if any employer tried to do that, they'd be breaking WA law. Anything the workers might do to them in national court would pale in comparison to IA's pets buggering them with the full power of the WA behind them. If the employees wanted results, their best bet would be to complain to Wine And Crouton Conference instead.

It also protects workers from being retaliated against for enforcing their rights in court.

Wasn't that already illegal as well?

According to the "Regulation" boilerplate text: "A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public."

Yeah, but all the protections you're mentioning, are already in place via other resolutions.

They could be coerced into signing away their ability to take legal action. They could face retaliation for taking legal action in defense of their rights.

And they still can be and they still could be, if your whole point is that "some people might break the existing laws".

I don't really see anything wrong with the title. "Ensuring Judicial Access for Workers," maybe?

They already have that. Howabout "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers", since you keep saying those are what you want to protect?

Araraukar wrote:

Cretox State wrote:OOC: The proposal prevents workers from being coerced into signing away their right to seek legal action

OOC: At the risk of sounding like a broken record, didn't we just pass that resolution?

OOC: One does not contradict the other. This one specifically protects workers from retaliation/being coerced into signing away their legal rights.

Araraukar wrote:

and prohibits retaliation for taking legal action. This is how the proposal ensures access to the legal system.

How? I mean, I get that those are good things, but what does that have to do with access to the legal system? Access to legal system would be more like guidance to the jungle of Legalese bureaucracy, or providing them with access to legal counseling when necessary, etc.

In this case, access to the legal system means that workers cannot be coerced by their employers into, y'know, being prevented from accessing the legal system.

Araraukar wrote:

This proposal protects workers from being coerced into signing away their legal rights

Didn't we just pass that resolution? What new does this add to this particular aspect? Remember that the yellow fox contracts are forbidden by an even earlier resolution.

That's why I removed yellow fuzzy contracts.

Declares:

1. no arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable with respect to an employment dispute unless:
   1. the agreement was not mandated by the employer, made a condition of employment or any employment-related benefit, or effected through coercion;
   2. each individual entering into the agreement was informed in sufficiently plain writing of their right to refuse the agreement without fear of retaliation, in addition to any other protections they may have pertaining to the signing of the agreement;
   3. each individual entering into the agreement received a period of at least 30 days to accept or reject the agreement; and
   4. each individual entering into the agreement affirmatively consented to the agreement in writing;
2. no employer may retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an individual for refusing to enter into an agreement that provides for arbitration of an employment dispute;
3. no employer may retaliate or threaten to retaliate against an individual for seeking judicial enforcement of their rights;

Araraukar wrote:

(indirectly; workers can sue you if you illegally exploit them by, oh say, forcing them to handle toxic substances with no protection).

...why? I mean, if any employer tried to do that, they'd be breaking WA law. Anything the workers might do to them in national court would pale in comparison to IA's pets buggering them with the full power of the WA behind them. If the employees wanted results, their best bet would be to complain to Wine And Crouton Conference instead.

Not every form of worker exploitation is covered by WA law. Member nations are far better equipped to pass nuanced safety regulations regarding specific industries, and those laws cannot be enforced by workers if they cannot take legal action.

Araraukar wrote:

It also protects workers from being retaliated against for enforcing their rights in court.

Wasn't that already illegal as well?

Is it? What resolution does this?

Araraukar wrote:

According to the "Regulation" boilerplate text: "A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public."

Yeah, but all the protections you're mentioning, are already in place via other resolutions.

Clause 2 is already in place? Also, there's a big difference between "sign this agreement or you don't get the job" and "we have a potential dispute, so sign this agreement or clean out your desk."

Araraukar wrote:

They could be coerced into signing away their ability to take legal action. They could face retaliation for taking legal action in defense of their rights.

And they still can be and they still could be, if your whole point is that "some people might break the existing laws".

This law would be, as you said, enforced by the mighty and unrivaled power of the gnome brigade. National-level legislation is easier to break, and needs to actually be enforceable for it to be worth the paper it's printed on.

Araraukar wrote:

I don't really see anything wrong with the title. "Ensuring Judicial Access for Workers," maybe?

They already have that. Howabout "Protecting Legal Rights of Workers", since you keep saying those are what you want to protect?

Changed; I like that title.

Cretox State wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Wasn't that already illegal as well?

Is it? What resolution does this?

(OOC: Clause D4 of Rights of the Employed bans retaliation against workers for enforcing their rights against discrimination in court, but not retaliation against legal action generally. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with minor duplication.)

Technically it should be "Protecting the Legal Rights of Workers"

Flying Eagles wrote:Technically it should be "Protecting the Legal Rights of Workers"

OOC: Legal rights in general are being protected, not a specific series of rights.

Edit: Tentatively looking to submit at major if there are no objections.

How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.

Wallenburg wrote:How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.

Legality challenge?

Wallenburg wrote:How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.

OOC: Are you certain about that? This proposal's language specifically covers postdispute arbitration agreements for employment disputes. This distinction was even more clear in the first draft; I felt that it was unnecessary to make this distinction given the predispute agreement ban imposed by Fair Arbitration Act, and the ever-present possibility of it being repealed (which would make the conditions of 2a even more important). The other two important bits, 2b and 2c, are not present in FAA in any capacity.

Cretox State wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:How is this not purely duplication? Down to sharing a lot of the same language, this proposal just does what Fair Arbitration Act does, but less of it. Nothing in this is not covered by the existing ban on forced arbitration agreements for employment disputes.

OOC: Are you certain about that? This proposal's language specifically covers postdispute arbitration agreements for employment disputes. This distinction was even more clear in the first draft; I felt that it was unnecessary to make this distinction given the predispute agreement ban imposed by Fair Arbitration Act, and the ever-present possibility of it being repealed (which would make the conditions of 2a even more important). The other two important bits, 2b and 2c, are not present in FAA in any capacity.

So not exactly a duplication violation, just enough overlap that the effects of this resolution are minuscule.

Wallenburg wrote:So not exactly a duplication violation, just enough overlap that the effects of this resolution are minuscule.

OOC: I would hardly call protecting workers from retaliation for taking legal action "minuscule." I would hardly call protecting workers from being coerced into signing away their right to take legal action "minuscule."

Cretox State wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:So not exactly a duplication violation, just enough overlap that the effects of this resolution are minuscule.

OOC: I would hardly call protecting workers from retaliation for taking legal action "minuscule." I would hardly call protecting workers from being coerced into signing away their right to take legal action "minuscule."

A coerced contract is already nonbinding, and is illegal depending on what it's for. This isn't a real issue given standing WA law.

Wallenburg wrote:

Cretox State wrote:OOC: I would hardly call protecting workers from retaliation for taking legal action "minuscule." I would hardly call protecting workers from being coerced into signing away their right to take legal action "minuscule."

A coerced contract is already nonbinding, and is illegal depending on what it's for. This isn't a real issue given standing WA law.

OOC: The issue of potential coercion is handled in greater detail in section 2, and it doesn't discount the rest of the proposal.

OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.

Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.

OOC: Every resolution passed by the WA "violates the sovereignty of the nations" to some degree.

Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.

OOC: Is it a violation of sovereignty? No nation is forced to enter or remain in the World Assembly.

Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.

That is the exact and only function of the WA.

I fear the economic crisis

Apollo 19 wrote:OOC: can the WA stop making resolutions that violate the sovereignty of the nations? It's not your job to make policies that overrule national laws.

Then why are you in the WA?

Durbur wrote:I fear the economic crisis

"Ambassador, why does workers being able to actually use your judicial system make you fear an economic crisis? Do the employers in your nation depend on keeping their employees from being able to excercise their legal rights?"

Bill fails to recognize or protect workers fundamental right to organize or unions' right to take industrial action to protect workers' rights. Bill seeks to individualize workers' responses to abusive employers etc rather than sanctioning and protecting workers' rights to take collective action to redress wrongs. Bill fails to protect the right to strike also.

The bill atomises and undermines workers rights to collectively bargain, favoring an individual approach to industrial relations.


As a result I'm voting against.

Moehaven wrote:Bill fails to recognize or protect workers fundamental right to organize or unions' right to take industrial action to protect workers' rights. Bill seeks to individualize workers' responses to abusive employers etc rather than sanctioning and protecting workers' rights to take collective action to redress wrongs. Bill fails to protect the right to strike also.

WA Labor Relations Act. Full support from my end, as usual; I see that you have also changed your vote to that effect

Ambassador, this is a blatant attack on the soverignty of Wealthatonia! Our fair standards are set by the corporate bodies of each regional CEO. I would advise sane nations to vote against it. But should it pass, we will have to hasten the planned automation of our industries

Wealthatonia wrote:Ambassador, this is a blatant attack on the soverignty of Wealthatonia! Our fair standards are set by the corporate bodies of each regional CEO. I would advise sane nations to vote against it. But should it pass, we will have to hasten the planned automation of our industries

Ambassador, wouldn't the automation of your industry be in the best interest of your citizens and therefor incentivize the passage of this bill with those it ostensibly is supposed to convince to vote against it?