09-08-2006, 09:40 PM
At this point, Mikitivity will be abstaining. We directed some of our questions to the sponsoring nation, Gruenberg, whom quickly replied. Specifically they feel that this resolution does not protect employers, but really is designed to give employees the right to neogitate contracts free of government regulations. They (and other nations such as Ausserland) correctly pointed out that previous resolutions have moved nations to have open shop (union) businesses, thus this resolution does not take away a significant amount of union bargining power. However, it still seems to my government that some degree of union bargining power is turned over to employees directly.
What is unclear is how this resolution impacts professional guilds and classifications, which do charge fees, often are government regulated, but are not involved with "work-time" issues. That coupled with the position one government had that this resolution will most certainly force governments to do away with general caps on the maximum number of hours employees can work in a regular work week, seem to justify our neutral position.
My government does appreciate and will endeavour to follow this resolution should it pass, though like many of our neighbors here, feel that there is a degree of uncertainity that we are unwilling to vote yes.
Howie T. Katzman
What is unclear is how this resolution impacts professional guilds and classifications, which do charge fees, often are government regulated, but are not involved with "work-time" issues. That coupled with the position one government had that this resolution will most certainly force governments to do away with general caps on the maximum number of hours employees can work in a regular work week, seem to justify our neutral position.
My government does appreciate and will endeavour to follow this resolution should it pass, though like many of our neighbors here, feel that there is a degree of uncertainity that we are unwilling to vote yes.
Howie T. Katzman