by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics




by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. . 14 reads.

GA Recommendation Archive: Vote FOR 'Repeal Fairness in Collective Bargaining' | OWL


Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'

Background Information

Proposal title: Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'
Author: Sylh Alanor
Purpose: To repeal previous legislation, arguing loopholes arising from unclear language might be seriously exploitable by anti-union employers and countries, consequently harming the target's intent.


Vote .For.

The Office's Analysis

GA 530 "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" sought to implement international standards for the relationship between labour unions and their associated workers, and ensure that they can operate without undue interference by employers. The at-vote resolution however, while affirming these goals, points out critical flaws within this target resolution, prominently its inconsistent or vague use of terminology. As argued by the proposal, these are easily exploitable weaknesses ultimately undermining the target's intent. Support by GA 530's author for the repeal, alongside a promising replacement for GA 530 being prepared to address the concerns, leave little room for concern in this case. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'".

Supplementary Opinions


From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is the OWL Director and a Deputy Chair of the South Pacific.

Tepertopia wrote:The proposal raises some good points about the original resolution. As the author of Fairness in Collective Bargaining has voiced their support for this proposal and a replacement for the repeal target is nearing submission, I think it'd be safe to swap the target with a shiny new resolution that would fix the flaws pointed out in the proposal at hand.

Qvait is a member of the Council on Regional Security of the South Pacific.

Qvait wrote:Considering that the author of "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" supports the repeal based on the arguments presented in the proposed repeal, I believe that we should vote for the proposal knowing that another proposal exists to replace what will be repealed.

Greater Scottdascoda is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Greater Scottdascoda wrote:there are loopholes which this proposal points out and I believe warrants a repeal and the author of "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" supports the proposal. There is a new proposal to replace the repeal is currently underway and Knowing that their is a replacement proposal is not far away, it is in my humble opinion safe to vote "For" the repeal.

From the World

Scalizagasti is the Overseer of the Assembly of the URA. He posted the following on the NS forums:

Scalizagasti wrote:"That being said, the Disappointed clause in this repeal makes a very convincing argument. As you have described, these vaguely defined terms give employers and governments a loophole to ignore some very important protections that the original resolution attempts to guarantee. For this reason, I support this repeal, and eagerly await the replacement."

Chimes is the Delegate of The Rejected Realms. They posted the following on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:Opposed the original proposal so im very supportive of this and I will note a better replacement is in the works on the NS forum.

Simone Republic is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Simone Republic wrote:For repeal. I am against collective bargaining as a matter of principle and I will also vote against the replacement.


From TSP Citizens

Arvan Irawer is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Arvan Irawer wrote:Fairness in Collective Bargaining was and is a resolution I firmly believe in. Although I do agree that there are loopholes, there will always be loopholes in any resolution no matter who drafts it. I believe Fairness in Collective Bargaining is a strong resolution and should be kept.

From the World

Castle Federation is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Castle Federation wrote:This is an often considered bar of WA literature. How much specificity in meaning is too extreme, and then how much is too little. We aren't accustomed to 12 page long proposals that define every nook and cranny of definitions and stipulations, and I honestly would not like to see that as that level of legalism misses the central point of the GA which is to come together and agree on a principle which is moderately defined through some act of law. It is a person to person call, but I find this argument of repeal too far in the overly scrupulous direction.

Kastonvia is a Deputy Speaker of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Kastonvia wrote:Against. I dont think that GAR#530 does more to harm the rights of workers than protect them as the author states.