[PASSED] Fairness in Collective Bargaining

[Sedgistan]

"The 'WA Labor Relations Act' is undoubtedly commendable for its enshrinement of union participation and bargaining in international law. However, we feel that the legislation in question does not go far enough in securing the right of workers to collectively bargain, and are concerned by the lack of any regulations on unions that would ensure fairness towards employers. This is something we wish to address. As always, any feedback is appreciated."

Draft 3: Changed the blockage provision.

Fairness in Collective Bargaining

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Labour Rights

---

The World Assembly,

Believing that labor unions are essential in allowing workers to negotiate benefits, freedom from exploitation, and fair compensation on equal footing with their employers,

Commending the efforts of prior WA legislation to strike a reasonable balance between the necessity of effective collective bargaining and the public good, and

Convinced that a more expansive resolution on the subject is necessary, in order to solidify the negotiating ability of workers and provide needed protections for employers where unions are concerned, hereby:

1. Defines "interference" as any acts intended to place or keep a labor union under the control of an employer whose workers are represented by that union as a bargaining unit;
2. Prohibits the interference of employers and labor unions in the establishment, functioning, or administration of labor unions;
3. Prohibits employers from:
   1. unduly impinging on the ability of multiple workers to act in concert to protect their rights; or
   2. discriminating against workers for engaging in concerted activities to protect their rights;
4. Prohibits labor unions from:
   1. coercing workers in the exercise of their rights or an employer in its choice of bargaining representative;
   2. deliberately influencing an employer to discriminate against certain workers;
   3. requiring excessive dues; or
   4. deliberately influencing an employer to pay for unneeded workers, excepting paid leave and severance-related benefits;
5. Requires employers and the labor unions that lawfully represent said employers' workers to make a good-faith effort to negotiate with one another;
6. Mandates that member nations:
   1. establish, if such does not already exist, and maintain an effective system to enforce labor law in relation to collective bargaining and labor practices; and
   2. allow labor unions to deliberately influence an employer to cease doing business with another employer;
7. Urges member nations to:
   1. promote union membership through union security agreements; and
   2. implement more expansive regulations protecting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers.

[Cretox State]

Fairness in Collective Bargaining

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Labour Rights

---

The World Assembly,

Believing that labor unions are essential in allowing workers to negotiate benefits, freedom from exploitation, and fair compensation on equal footing with their employers,

Commending GAR#43 "WA Labor Relations Act" in striking a reasonable balance between the necessity of effective collective bargaining and the public good, and

Convinced that a more expansive resolution on the subject is necessary, in order to solidify the negotiating ability of workers and provide needed protections for employers where unions are concerned, hereby:

1. Defines "interference" as any acts intended to place labor unions under the control of an employer;
2. Prohibits the interference of employers and labor unions in the establishment, functioning, or administration of other labor unions;
3. Prohibits employers from:
   1. impinging on the ability of multiple workers to act in concert to protect their rights;
   2. discriminating against workers for engaging in concerted activities to protect their rights; or
   3. refusing to bargain with a union that lawfully represents that employer's workers;
4. Prohibits labor unions from:
   1. coercing workers in the exercise of their rights or an employer in its choice of bargaining representative;
   2. deliberately influencing an employer to discriminate against certain workers;
   3. refusing to bargain with the employer of the workers that union represents;
   4. requiring excessive dues;
   5. requiring or deliberately influencing an employer to pay for unneeded workers, excepting paid leave and severance-related benefits; or
   6. requiring or deliberately influencing an employer to cease doing business with another employer;
5. Mandates that member nations establish, if such does not already exist, an effective system to enforce labor law in relation to collective bargaining and labor practices; and
6. Urges member nations to implement more expansive regulations protecting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers.

Fairness in Collective Bargaining

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Labour Rights

---

The World Assembly,

Believing that labor unions are essential in allowing workers to negotiate benefits, freedom from exploitation, and fair compensation on equal footing with their employers,

Commending GAR#43 "WA Labor Relations Act" in striking a reasonable balance between the necessity of effective collective bargaining and the public good, and

Convinced that a more expansive resolution on the subject is necessary, in order to solidify the negotiating ability of workers and provide needed protections for employers where unions are concerned, hereby:

1. Defines:
   1. a "company union" as a labor union not freely elected by a workforce, and which an employer controls or exerts a significant degree of influence over the functioning or administration of; and
   2. "interference" as any acts intended to place labor unions under the control of an employer;
2. Dissolves all extant company unions, and prohibits the establishment of further company unions;
3. Prohibits the interference of employers and labor unions in the establishment, functioning, or administration of labor unions;
4. Prohibits employers from:
   1. impinging on the ability of multiple workers to act in concert to protect their rights;
   2. discriminating against workers for engaging in concerted activities to protect their rights; and
   3. refusing to bargain with a union that lawfully represents that employer's workers;
5. Prohibits labor unions from:
   1. coercing workers in the exercise of their rights or an employer in its choice of bargaining representative;
   2. deliberately influencing an employer to discriminate against certain workers;
   3. refusing to bargain with the employer of the workers that union represents;
   4. requiring excessive dues;
   5. requiring or deliberately influencing an employer to pay for unneeded workers, excepting paid leave and severance-related benefits; and
   6. requiring or deliberately influencing an employer to cease doing business with another employer;
6. Mandates that member nations establish, if such does not already exist, an agency with the responsibility of enforcing labor law in relation to collective bargaining and labor practices; and
7. Urges member nations to implement more expansive regulations protecting the ability of workers to collectively bargain with employers.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 1b and 3 are tautological. You define ‘interference’ as involving unions then prohibit interference with unions. Also, there should be a ‘the’ before ‘union’ in clause 5c. I’m currently unsure as to whether this might be too much regulation.”

[Cretox State]

“Clause 1b and 3 are tautological. You define ‘interference’ as involving unions then prohibit interference with unions. Also, there should be a ‘the’ before ‘union’ in clause 5c. I’m currently unsure as to whether this might be too much regulation.”

"Could you please elaborate on what makes those statements tautological? The intended meaning is that employers and labor unions cannot act to place other unions under the domination of an employer. Regarding 5c, is 'the' really a necessary insertion? 'A tree takes water from the ground that tree grows on.' Yes, the legislation is a bit on the aggressive side. However, we have tried to not make the proposal unnecessarily micromanaging. For example, the proposal would mandate the creation of a national agency rather than a WA committee."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Could you please elaborate on what makes those statements tautological? The intended meaning is that employers and labor unions cannot act to place other unions under the domination of an employer. Regarding 5c, is 'the' really a necessary insertion? 'A tree takes water from the ground that tree grows on.' Yes, the legislation is a bit on the aggressive side. However, we have tried to not make the proposal unnecessarily micromanaging. For example, the proposal would mandate the creation of a national agency rather than a WA committee."

OOC:
In regards to 3, what you have written is

Prohibits the interference of [...] labor unions in the establishment, functioning, or administration of labor unions

That would seem to suggest that a labor union is not to interfere in its own establishment, functioning, or administration. Given the very idiosyncratic definition you gave of interfere, this might not be a problem, but is it really necessary to define interfere in that way, when its commonly accepted meaning from the nearest dictionary would suffice?

[Aclion]

how about...

Defines:

1. a "company union" as a labor union not freely elected by a workforce, or which an employer controls or exerts a significant degree of influence over the functioning or administration of; and
2. "interference" as any acts intended to place labor unions under the control of an interest other then its members, or inhibit its representation of those members;

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 1b and 3 are tautological. You define ‘interference’ as involving unions then prohibit interference with unions. Also, there should be a ‘the’ before ‘union’ in clause 5c. I’m currently unsure as to whether this might be too much regulation.”

"Could you please elaborate on what makes those statements tautological? The intended meaning is that employers and labor unions cannot act to place other unions under the domination of an employer. Regarding 5c, is 'the' really a necessary insertion? 'A tree takes water from the ground that tree grows on.' Yes, the legislation is a bit on the aggressive side. However, we have tried to not make the proposal unnecessarily micromanaging. For example, the proposal would mandate the creation of a national agency rather than a WA committee."

“In 5c, yes, that is grammatically mandatory. The ‘the’ needs to be there for the sentence to work. As to micromanagement, I don’t think that there’s necessarily too much micromanagement; it’s more the prohibition of company unions wholesale that wouldn’t go down too well with the capitalist government of Kenmoria, assuming they ever notice my memos. I’m still debating with myself, but the outright prohibition may be too much for some Laissez-Faire nations.”

(OOC: Desmothenes explained my point about clauses 1b and 3 better than I could have done.)

[Honeydewistania]

Labour > Labor

[Attempted Socialism]

A few questions:
- If a labour union itself owns or controls the workplace (As some ideologies, such as syndicalism, advocates), would it be a company union under 1a, despite being freely elected by the workforce?
- Labour unions are usually places of work themselves, insofar that they employ or elect-with-pay people to organise the union and represent them part- or full-time. While some labour union staffers are organised by a different labour union, this is not always so. Would that be affected?
- 5a and 5f seem to prohibit organising sympathy strikes, blockades or the like? Am I reading this right?
- Clause 6, with a required agency, would mean state involvement even if there is an agreement between unions and employers (IRL Denmark has what is akin to a labour constitution, with very little government interference). The Danish labour court judges are nominated by the labour and employer unions, and while the chairs are high court judges, it is otherwise fully independent and has complete jurisdiction over employer-union disputes. If Denmark was a WA member, would clause 6 interfere with such a system?

I am generally in favour of an expansive collective bargaining resolution, so don't mistake these questions for opposition. I am quite willing to help in the drafting process if you're interested.

[Cretox State]

Labour > Labor

OOC: As an American, I use "labor." However, the proposal subcategory is "Labour Rights," and I can't change the spelling there.

[Honeydewistania]

Labour > Labor

OOC: As an American, I use "labor." However, the proposal subcategory is "Labour Rights," and I can't change the spelling there.

Exactly. So, consistency.

[Cretox State]

Updated and bumped. Won't be looking to submit for some time.

[Honeydewistania]

Instead of establish, just say ‘use or repurpose an organisation to blah blah blah’

[Cretox State]

Instead of establish, just say ‘use or repurpose an organisation to blah blah blah’

How about "empower"?

[Cretox State]

Feedback bump.

[Attempted Socialism]

Going to repeat my questions, they double as feedback IMO.

A few questions:
- If a labour union itself owns or controls the workplace (As some ideologies, such as syndicalism, advocates), would it be a company union under 1a, despite being freely elected by the workforce?
- Labour unions are usually places of work themselves, insofar that they employ or elect-with-pay people to organise the union and represent them part- or full-time. While some labour union staffers are organised by a different labour union, this is not always so. Would that be affected?
- 5a and 5f seem to prohibit organising sympathy strikes, blockades or the like? Am I reading this right?
- Clause 6, with a required agency, would mean state involvement even if there is an agreement between unions and employers (IRL Denmark has what is akin to a labour constitution, with very little government interference). The Danish labour court judges are nominated by the labour and employer unions, and while the chairs are high court judges, it is otherwise fully independent and has complete jurisdiction over employer-union disputes. If Denmark was a WA member, would clause 6 interfere with such a system?

I am generally in favour of an expansive collective bargaining resolution, so don't mistake these questions for opposition. I am quite willing to help in the drafting process if you're interested (I don't have time).

[Cretox State]

- If a labour union itself owns or controls the workplace (As some ideologies, such as syndicalism, advocates), would it be a company union under 1a, despite being freely elected by the workforce?

I removed that clause largely due to redundancy. Under the current version, what you're referring to shouldn't be affected.

- Labour unions are usually places of work themselves, insofar that they employ or elect-with-pay people to organise the union and represent them part- or full-time. While some labour union staffers are organised by a different labour union, this is not always so. Would that be affected?

You make a very interesting point, though I'm uncertain if this is a reasonable interpretation of the text. I've added "other" before "labor unions" in that clause.

- 5a and 5f seem to prohibit organising sympathy strikes, blockades or the like? Am I reading this right?

It certainly prohibits blockades, though I'm not certain what part of it targets sympathy strikes.

- Clause 6, with a required agency, would mean state involvement even if there is an agreement between unions and employers (IRL Denmark has what is akin to a labour constitution, with very little government interference). The Danish labour court judges are nominated by the labour and employer unions, and while the chairs are high court judges, it is otherwise fully independent and has complete jurisdiction over employer-union disputes. If Denmark was a WA member, would clause 6 interfere with such a system?

I changed that clause. "Agency" is too restrictive anyway, in my opinion.

[Cretox State]

Bumping again. I know this draft covers a lot of specific areas, so any more feedback would be appreciated.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:
I generally like your changes. However...

- 5a and 5f seem to prohibit organising sympathy strikes, blockades or the like? Am I reading this right?

It certainly prohibits blockades, though I'm not certain what part of it targets sympathy strikes.

4f (Due to changes in numbering) at least diminishes the collective bargaining power of unions. If one workplace is trying to underpay, otherwise cheapskate or attack the rights of workers, and that workplace is dependent on other workplaces, the collective bargaining power of unions is greatly enhanced by cross-workplace solidarity; workers at other workplaces can, e.g., refuse to deliver goods or services, or strike (In part or in full) in sympathy if the workers at the original workplace go on strike. I have participated in a few labour struggles where the unions gained the upper hand by organising support at other workplaces. This is also one of the easier methods of punishing strikebreaking by hiring scabs, since scabs by definition aren't part of a striking union, the union bargaining power has to come from somewhere else. However, there's little doubt in my mind this could plausibly be called "influencing an employer to cease doing business with another employer" (From your clause 4f), since that's where the pressure is coming from; either bargain fairly with the union, or the union will make sure you're cut off, even from other companies.
While I think union blockades are important and delightful, especially if backed up by union rifle associations or a union version of the US 2nd Amendment, I recognise that this resolution tries to strike a different balance. Outlawing both blockades and sympathy strikes is, I think, not particularly balanced as this opens the door both literally and metaphorically for strikebreaking and scabs.

[Cretox State]

--snip--

Sometimes I look back at something I wrote and wonder "what the hell was I thinking." This is one of those times. I edited the draft to explicitly allow blockades. I still can't figure out what part of it bans sympathy strikes, though.

[Attempted Socialism]

--snip--

Sometimes I look back at something I wrote and wonder "what the hell was I thinking." This is one of those times. I edited the draft to explicitly allow blockades. I still can't figure out what part of it bans sympathy strikes, though.

Perhaps I'm explaining my point poorly, sorry about that. A sympathy strike is influence from unions on other companies to either put pressure on the original company or force the other companies to stop dealing with it. In my estimation sympathy strikes would be banned by (the now removed) clause 4f the same way blockades would be.
Though I got more than the change I had hoped for, so I'll just note my support for the record and be happy.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This seems to prohibit entities from refusing to negotiate beyond a predetermined line in the sand during bargaining. Was this intentional?"

[Cretox State]

"This seems to prohibit entities from refusing to negotiate beyond a predetermined line in the sand during bargaining. Was this intentional?"

You're referring to 3c and 4c?

[Separatist Peoples]

"This seems to prohibit entities from refusing to negotiate beyond a predetermined line in the sand during bargaining. Was this intentional?"

You're referring to 3c and 4c?

"Yes."

[Cretox State]

You're referring to 3c and 4c?

"Yes."

Removed; I see your point. Do you think it would be beneficial to add a mandate that unions and employers make a good-faith effort to negotiate with one another?