NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal 'P Rts Labour Unions'

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10307
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

[DRAFT] Repeal 'P Rts Labour Unions'

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:38 am

Image
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.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:22 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10307
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:38 am

Reserved.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8014
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:21 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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 :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 660
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:16 pm

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.
Last edited by Refuge Isle on Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jennifer Darnel (29, F, herbivore)
Refugi Arch-Administrator
Admin assistant: Siv Ember
A List of History
3x WA Author, Founder of Refugia, SPSF
Posts not OOC are assumed to be made under duress

User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:04 pm

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.
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10307
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:08 pm

Junitaki-cho wrote: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.)
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Mar 11, 2021 6:12 am

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

Santino Toscani
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Free Las Pinas, Opiachus, Svandammen

Advertisement

Remove ads