NationStates

I see. I wrote this keeping GAR#43 fully in mind. The exceptions applied by #43 were a consideration, and I wrote clause 5 specifically to allow for compliance with those extant corner case restrictions.

The proposal has been redacted from the queue, and former clause 3(e) has been excised, with the understanding that GAR#43 effectively legislates on the right to strike while blocking meaningful provisions on non-strike collective action. This draft will remain here a short while for further input, but I believe it to be legal in this form.

I hope you can find a way to get this back to the floor, you have my support.

Given the lack of further feedback, this has been resubmitted without the previously offending line. I hope this change is sufficient.

I didn't read this proposal until the proposal ahead of this in the queue was withdrawn. Claims under s 4(b) are going to be raised any time a union does anything which a minority dislikes:


I think that imposes a legalistic harm on unions doing 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'.

Labour unions are some of the most dangerous blood-suckers in the Universe. They are immoral, alternative bosses that pretend to fight for rights and instead destroy freedom.

A passage of such a resolution will only confirm the snollygostering and lunatic nature of its supporters, and will initiate the GA’s annihilation.

Vote AGAINST “protecting the rights of labour unions”.

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

Would the proposing delegation please clarify how this provision affects firms that are collectively owned by their workers, e.g. worker cooperatives, or production unions? Or where a union itself is the owner of a firm?

While i think this resolution is very well written and, from a pro labor standpoint, very well done, I will be voting against as the employers in my nation have had quite a few issues with corrupt unions so am voting against in principled support for my nations employers, but wanted to chime in and just say i think you did a great job and my opposition is just political and not because you did a bad job! Keep up the great work!

"While the Party does not appreciate the inclusion of clause 4d which we believe defangs unions by making them incapable of enforcing democratic centralism, we recognize that this is probably about the best in labor rights legislation that we can expect from the General Assembly and are voting in favor. We are however noting our belief that clause 4d's function should have been left for each nation's government to decide on its own or the subject of a separate piece of legislation, nya."

Rhino-Lions wrote:While i think this resolution is very well written and, from a pro labor standpoint, very well done, I will be voting against as the employers in my nation have had quite a few issues with corrupt unions so am voting against in principled support for my nations employers, but wanted to chime in and just say i think you did a great job and my opposition is just political and not because you did a bad job! Keep up the great work!

Thanks for the kind words! I respect your position and appreciate you sticking to your values.

Kelssek wrote:

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

Would the proposing delegation please clarify how this provision affects firms that are collectively owned by their workers, e.g. worker cooperatives, or production unions? Or where a union itself is the owner of a firm?

I believe it's fully possible for a collective and a union to operate with independence from one another, insofar as their not holding any conflicts of interest or overlapping management, etc., but I also don't see unionization as a significant factor when a business is already collectively owned.

"Germany will oppose any iteration of this proposal that includes provisions which disallow employers from discriminating against workers based on their participation in a labour union. Employers should be free to determine if they wish to allow their workers to unionise, within the confines of the contract signed between the two parties, and the government should not impede this process."

Preventing the formation or independent operation of labour unions ?

It's not often we ask questions but what does this mean for the worker in a labor Union?

Ambassador of Texkentuck

Texkentuck wrote:Preventing the formation or independent operation of labour unions ?

It's not often we ask questions but what does this mean for the worker in a labor Union?

Ambassador of Texkentuck

"[Prohibits employers from] preventing the formation or independent operation of labour unions" means workers would be able to create and operate labour unions without their employer stopping or disrupting them. That line ensures that unions are allowed to be formed without problems, and the lines below it mean those workers can't be punished for deciding to unionize.

Marxist Germany wrote:"Germany will oppose any iteration of this proposal that includes provisions which disallow employers from discriminating against workers based on their participation in a labour union. Employers should be free to determine if they wish to allow their workers to unionise, within the confines of the contract signed between the two parties, and the government should not impede this process."

"It is unclear how the delegation from Germany believes that unions can operate to any degree of efficacy if employers may simply target their membership, systematically. A union's power comes from its collective actions. Should an employer feel a union inconveniences them (as intended), then dismantles that collective action, workers are left at the mercy of whatever the employer deems best for their working arrangement.

If a company feels the need to discriminate against its unionised workforce, it is the place that most desperately needs to be unionised."

Junitaki-cho wrote:

Texkentuck wrote:Preventing the formation or independent operation of labour unions ?

It's not often we ask questions but what does this mean for the worker in a labor Union?

Ambassador of Texkentuck

"[Prohibits employers from] preventing the formation or independent operation of labour unions" means workers would be able to create and operate labour unions without their employer stopping or disrupting them. That line ensures that unions are allowed to be formed without problems, and the lines below it mean those workers can't be punished for deciding to unionize.

I understand that the unions that will be formed are put in place to protect workers. Our nation supports unions to be formed for Texkentuck workers but some of our buisnesses who are unionized are out-competed by companies who pay a fair wage and workers are allowed to work over time. Our nation will support this if the unions can't have stipulations on overtime but support the right of the worker to decline overtime with out penalty. Also their should be stipulations that lead to automatic termination for insubordination of workers in the union. This may lead to workers not making the full amount they can get even with a fair wage and workers who are not productive being put back on by the union. This could lead to world wide work force catastrophe. This proposal should have been more tweaked. Our nation isn't a member of the WA but once again we see catastrophic policy which will discourage entrepreneurship. It would be better to just be a worker once this goes through. Those who do work to the top because of the autocracy and can see the top just not caring and coexisting in business. Just because their union this could lead to most businesses only working the worker part time so in the end they feel still underpaid but with benefits. This proposal isn't great enough.....

Thank you for answering this question.

Ambassador to Texkentuck

We would support but won't because it doesn't go far enough.....Leads to workers making more but working less and Autocracy.......

P.S. we are disappointed that this doesn't state that workers can drink beer during the job or on break.

simple such as this why we left the WA. Goodness couldn't we just protect the right to have some beer on break and free cell phone use. We want the world to live in a technologically advanced age of responsibility and being able to have a damn good beer.....................................................................................................

Our nation is P****

Texkentuck's Ambassador slams down beer glass and shatters all over the table and storms out with security team and secretaries. One secretary was on the way out at the WA and the leaders reaction holding up a bottle of beer in the air with his secretaries and security following him He shouted on the way out you should have made this a real proposal for workers rights. It's a cooperate facade!!

Ambassador of Texkentuck

Due to the monarchist state of my country, workers unions have shown to be nothing but trouble in the past. Riots, Strikes, and potentially Revolution, these are the things that are allowed when workers unions are given these rights. While the proposal is based in forming separate organizations without bias to support the workers rights makes sense, giving in to said extremists in unions show that with enough support they can push for further and further power until they take spot as head of the Government.

Just because they are independent, they aren’t excused from extremist ideology, mainly that of syndicalism that believes unions should run the state.

At time of writing I am firmly against this act, and urge fellow nations like mine to protect their economic and political interests by voting against this proposal.

Thank you.

Protecting the Rights of Labour Unions was passed 11,396 [74.4%] to 3,913 [25.6%] votes.

Thanks to everyone who supported this during drafting, approval, and at vote!