[DRAFT] Repeal 'P Rts Labour Unions'

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal 'Protecting the Rights of Labour Unions'
Repeal

---

The World Assembly finds as follows:

1. Section 4(b), which 'Disallows labour unions from... acting in the interests of an employer at the expense of the interests or well-being of its enrolled employees', creates a very difficult and subjective legal standard for unions, leading to their being sued any time they do much of anything. The provisions of WA legislation create grounds for suits against member nations in member nation courts for enforcement of the law. GA 440 'Admin Compliance Act' art 2 s 1 (2018).
   
   
2. The alternative interpretation of GA 440 art 2 s 1, that suits only bind member nations themselves, would make any legislation not explicitly binding member nations or directing them to undertake or support certain actions a dead letter. An interpretation which forecloses remedy for a substantial class of rights; the Assembly therefore should prefer ensuring that where there is a right, there is a remedy.
   
   
3. The subjective standard created by section 4(b) of the target resolution could easily be exploited by sore losers of a union vote, leading to constant legal costs. More unjustly, organised employers could set up a legal representation fund to help people start and fund such suits under the guise of helping labour exercise its rights, ensuring that labour unions are constantly incurring legal representation fees, harming their finances and forcing dues to increase, harming ordinary workers.
   
   
4. Section 4(d), which 'disallows labour unions from... discouraging or coercing employees from exercising their workers' rights', harms the ability for such unions to conduct negotiations with employers – which at times require a showing of good faith so to come to an amicable settlement – by discouraging bargaining unit employees from taking strike or slowdown action during such negotiations. Unions and employers exist in a symbiotic relationship: unions unable to restrain their radicals make it difficult to reach agreement with employers to the benefit of due-payers.
   
   
5. Because resolutions cannot be amended, repeal is the only way to ensure that labour unions no longer labour under the restrictions of the target resolution.

Now, therefore, be GA 543 'Protecting the Rights of Labour Unions' repealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

https://ifly6.no-ip.org/passed-resolution/GA/543

[Tinhampton]

Admin Compliance Act

Never use short titles when long titles would do you aren't on the verge of using your 5,000-character quota

[Refuge Isle]

Not convinced a union member (whose vote was in the minority) can argue that a union (which acts in the interest of the member) is acting in the interests of an employer by not supporting the membership's minority. I can imagine a host of scenarios which can feature relentless legal battles of a higher degree of credibility than yours.

[Junitaki-cho]

Refuge has it right. Section 4(b) does not prevent unions from taking any action which may somehow be less than ideal for any union member. It prohibits compromised unions from placing the needs of the employer over the needs of the employed. The vast majority of union actions could never be credibly construed in this way, and it's an unreasonable reading to suggest otherwise. Likewise, the minority in a union vote may be unhappy with the result, but the democratic process inherently values the interests of union employees, and so 4(b) cannot be invoked.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Refuge has it right. Section 4(b) does not prevent unions from taking any action which may somehow be less than ideal for any union member. It prohibits compromised unions from placing the needs of the employer over the needs of the employed. The vast majority of union actions could never be credibly construed in this way, and it's an unreasonable reading to suggest otherwise. Likewise, the minority in a union vote may be unhappy with the result, but the democratic process inherently values the interests of union employees, and so 4(b) cannot be invoked.

That might be a compelling argument if your proposal had not created an objective well-being standard. Alas it doesn't. (Ugh, somehow editing turned this sentence into the exact opposite of what I intended it to mean.)

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

“We fully support the repeal, as it formulates our concerns at the time it was passed.”

Santino Toscani
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly