03-02-2007, 08:12 PM
My UN nation, Ausserland, is strongly opposed to this repeal, on the grounds that it misrepresents the provisions of the original resolution and makes completely spurious arguments. Since some IDU members are asking for specifics on this, I'll try to explain....
The repeal states that #149 "PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule...." It does not. The resolution exempts military unions from the right to strike. Other industrial actions are not covered at all by the resolution, so nations are free to make whatever law they find necessary in this regard.
The repeal states that #149 "...provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities...." It does not. The author of the repeal doesn't seem to know what the word "mandate" means. There is no such mandate in the resolution.
The repeal states that arbitration is "a bias-prone system". Arbitration is a tried-and-true method of resolving labor disputes. It may be affected by bias, as may any other such system, but to label it as "bias-prone" is absurd.
The repeal states that the provisions on military unions "clearly represents a critical threat to national security". That is also absurd. The resolution does not prevent nations from enacting laws covering the actions of military personnel that would ensure the national security is not endangered. (An aside from RL.... This comes from a former Army officer who commanded troops in Vietnam and worked for almost three decades in in the national security bureaucracy.
)
The repeal states that #149 "GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being". Again, a gross misstatement of the resolution's provisions. Strikes which "directly endanger" lives of citizens are exempted from the right to strike. While I believe this exemption is too narrow, it does exist.
Hope that helps some.
The repeal states that #149 "PERMITS all military personnel to engage in industrial action, such as work-slow and work-to-rule...." It does not. The resolution exempts military unions from the right to strike. Other industrial actions are not covered at all by the resolution, so nations are free to make whatever law they find necessary in this regard.
The repeal states that #149 "...provides a mandate for dangerous and irresponsible activities...." It does not. The author of the repeal doesn't seem to know what the word "mandate" means. There is no such mandate in the resolution.
The repeal states that arbitration is "a bias-prone system". Arbitration is a tried-and-true method of resolving labor disputes. It may be affected by bias, as may any other such system, but to label it as "bias-prone" is absurd.
The repeal states that the provisions on military unions "clearly represents a critical threat to national security". That is also absurd. The resolution does not prevent nations from enacting laws covering the actions of military personnel that would ensure the national security is not endangered. (An aside from RL.... This comes from a former Army officer who commanded troops in Vietnam and worked for almost three decades in in the national security bureaucracy.
)The repeal states that #149 "GRANTS blanket permission for all strikes that are severely hazardous to health and safety, law and order, and public well being". Again, a gross misstatement of the resolution's provisions. Strikes which "directly endanger" lives of citizens are exempted from the right to strike. While I believe this exemption is too narrow, it does exist.
Hope that helps some.