NationStates

"The aim of this proposal is to build on the effects of prior resolutions that enshrine rights for workers, by ensuring that those rights can be enforced without fear of retaliation."

OOC: I know there might be some overlap here, and I have done my best to avoid duplication.

Edit: I feel this is ready for submission, and will be doing so later this week if there are no major issues.

Protecting Legal Rights of Workers

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Labor

The World Assembly,

Noting the importance of protecting the right of workers to be free from mistreatment and exploitation;

Recognizing the efforts of prior resolutions enacted by this most excellent body to enumerate key rights and ensure that workers' rights can be judicially enforced;

Concerned that the inherently unequal bargaining positions of workers and their employers leave the former open to coercion and the threat of retaliation with respect to enforcing their rights;

Understanding that protecting the ability of workers to seek relief for violations of their rights furthers the public interest and protects commerce, hereby:

1. Defines:
   1. an "employment dispute" as any dispute arising between an employer and one or more individuals or their authorized representative concerning a work relationship between them;
   2. an "arbitration agreement" as any agreement to arbitrate a dispute;
2. Declares:
   1. subject to extant World Assembly resolutions, 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;
3. Clarifies:
   1. no arbitrator shall determine the applicability of this resolution to an agreement to arbitrate;
   2. nothing in this resolution shall apply to any agreement between an employer or a labor organization, or between labor organizations, unless said agreement has the effect of waiving the ability of an individual to seek legal enforcement of their rights;
4. Urges member nations to protect the rights of workers and ensure that those rights can be legally enforced.

OOC: What are "collective bargaining waivers", and didn't we just pass a resolution on the arbitration thing?

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What are "collective bargaining waivers", and didn't we just pass a resolution on the arbitration thing?

OOC: Yellow-dog contracts, basically. This proposal is mostly intended to fill holes in prior resolutions, primarily concerning collective bargaining and retaliation. If it seems too redundant, I won't move forward with it.

I like this one! I would vote for it if it came up for vote.

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: Another day, another fuzzy-wuzzy title from my... Cretox Statean colleague, probably. May I suggest "Arbitration Agreements Accord"?

Cretox State wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: What are "collective bargaining waivers", and didn't we just pass a resolution on the arbitration thing?

OOC: Yellow-dog contracts, basically.

OOC: I read most of that. I repeat, with slight addendum: what are "collective bargaining waivers" in relation to the proposal? Where does the collective bargaining come into it? Based on your source they're personal work contracts, illegal ones at that - including in the WA nations. So exactly what hole are you supposed to be plugging?

Araraukar wrote:

Cretox State wrote:OOC: Yellow-dog contracts, basically.

OOC: I read most of that. I repeat, with slight addendum: what are "collective bargaining waivers" in relation to the proposal? Where does the collective bargaining come into it? Based on your source they're personal work contracts, illegal ones at that - including in the WA nations. So exactly what hole are you supposed to be plugging?

OOC: Since it seems to be redundant (and probably duplication), I removed the collective bargaining part entirely.

OOC: Doing a feedback bump on this. I do understand that the topic matter is inherently niche, but I feel it's an important one to address.

The title needs to answer the question "Legal Access to what?" To puppies? To lunch breaks? To video games?

Is there anyway you can avoid the use of the word "reasonable" in 3aiii, as it's inherently vague?

OOC: 4a means what in Plain English? I'm just a teenager.

Flying Eagles wrote:The title needs to answer the question "Legal Access to what?" To puppies? To lunch breaks? To video games?

"Access... to the legal system? It would be similar to saying 'Golf Access for Businessmen'."

Cretox State wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:The title needs to answer the question "Legal Access to what?" To puppies? To lunch breaks? To video games?

"Access... to the legal system? It would be similar to saying 'Golf Access for Businessmen'."

The delegation from Tinhampton suggested "Arbitration Agreements Accord". Could that work?

OOC: I edited in a few more comments to my previous post.

Flying Eagles wrote:Is there anyway you can avoid the use of the word "reasonable" in 3aiii, as it's inherently vague?

I set the period to 30 days.

Flying Eagles wrote:OOC: 4a means what in Plain English? I'm just a teenager.

If a predispute agreement mandates the use of an arbitrator, the arbitrator can't say that this resolution doesn't apply to him.

Cretox State wrote:If a predispute agreement mandates the use of an arbitrator, the arbitrator can't say that this resolution doesn't apply to him.

Say this.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Cretox State wrote:If a predispute agreement mandates the use of an arbitrator, the arbitrator can't say that this resolution doesn't apply to him.

Say this.

Edited. I think that should work.

Cretox State wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Say this.

Edited. I think that should work.

Yep, although it would cover postdispute agreements too. Dunno if that’s what you intended.

Flying Eagles wrote:

Cretox State wrote:Edited. I think that should work.

Yep, although it would cover postdispute agreements too. Dunno if that’s what you intended.

That's intentional, since this proposal places restrictions on the validity of postdispute agreements.

Cretox State wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:Yep, although it would cover postdispute agreements too. Dunno if that’s what you intended.

That's intentional, since this proposal places restrictions on the validity of postdispute agreements.

OOC: Just making sure, as your plain English translation only covered predispute agreements

Cretox State wrote:

Flying Eagles wrote:The title needs to answer the question "Legal Access to what?" To puppies? To lunch breaks? To video games?

"Access... to the legal system? It would be similar to saying 'Golf Access for Businessmen'."

OOC: 1. It doesn't actually mention anything about access to the legal system (word "access" is not used even once in the proposal text), 2. the category/AoE is probably wrong as from what I can see, you're trying to give workers more rights instead of restricting them (unless the category/AoE combo has some hidden effect I'm not aware of), 3. given previous resolutions, how wouldn't workers ALREADY have access to the legal systems?, and 4. I still don't get how the wording follows from your example, as "Golf Access for Businessmen" sounds like it's lacking a word or several. And also, "Golf" at first brough the car to mind.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: 1. It doesn't actually mention anything about access to the legal system (word "access" is not used even once in the proposal text)

OOC: The proposal prevents workers from being coerced into signing away their right to seek legal action, and prohibits retaliation for taking legal action. This is how the proposal ensures access to the legal system.

Araraukar wrote:2. the category/AoE is probably wrong as from what I can see, you're trying to give workers more rights instead of restricting them (unless the category/AoE combo has some hidden effect I'm not aware of)

According to the category guidelines: "Labor Rights: Protecting the workers from exploitation and dangerous conditions at the expense of corporate bottom lines." This proposal protects workers from being coerced into signing away their legal rights, thereby protecting them from exploitation (directly; you can't exploit workers' weaker bargaining position), and protecting them from all manner of dangerous conditions and unfair treatment (indirectly; workers can sue you if you illegally exploit them by, oh say, forcing them to handle toxic substances with no protection). It also protects workers from being retaliated against for enforcing their rights in court.

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

Araraukar wrote:3. given previous resolutions, how wouldn't workers ALREADY have access to the legal systems?

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.

Araraukar wrote:4. I still don't get how the wording follows from your example, as "Golf Access for Businessmen" sounds like it's lacking a word or several. And also, "Golf" at first brough the car to mind.

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

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

We like that title, as it’s a lot less ambiguous.

Flying Eagles wrote:

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

We like that title, as it’s a lot less ambiguous.

"Done."

Edit: I'll try and submit this at some point later in the week, if there are no objections.

"Well written, with the exception of the fact that it unfairly places power in the hands of the workers, first shown in Section 1. a. Opposed."

Attancia wrote:"Well written, with the exception of the fact that it unfairly places power in the hands of the workers, first shown in Section 1. a. Opposed."

"How does it 'unfairly' empower workers?"

OOC: Tentatively planning to submit later this week.

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