We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Strike Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2187
Description[?]:
| The following are quotes taken from the preambles to the original proposed legislation before it was overturned recently (I couldn't be bothered to type anything new!!) 'The UCA recognises that Trade Unions have an absolute right to exist and that all have the right to be a member of one. ALso, members of trade unions have the right to strike over pay and conditions etc. These are rights that we will always defend. However, this bill will ensure due process and ensure that unions are not hijacked by militants whose sole aims is not the welfare of their members, but to cause disruption. Therefore, this act will introduce a requirement for ballots of all members to be held before going on strike and will make secondary strike action illegal, as we belive that secondary strike action is never necessary or justified - workers strike over their own pay and conditions, not simply because they feel sorry for someone else.' (Trade Unions Act - March 2124) 'Although we only just passed the Trade Union Act which outlaws secondary strike action and ensures that there must be a vote before a strike can go ahead, I have now actually realised that there is a problem and a potentially large loophole in the legislation which i last proposed. At the moment a ballot only has to be taken by members present at a meeting or whatever, therefore there is the possibility of intimidation of members into not attending, or indeed just a few militants to meet in a room and vote and then to claim that they speak on behalf of the whole union etc. Therefore i propose with this amendment to close this loophole by compelling unions to hold a vote of ALL their members of which a majority of ver 50% must approve strike action for it to go ahead.' (Strike Balloting Amendment Act - November 2126) |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Secondary strike action.
Old value:: Any trade union can go on a sympathy strike in support of other striking workers.
Current: Secondary strike action is illegal. Workers and unions can only go on strike for their own pay and conditions.
Proposed: Only closely related trade unions can walk out on a sympathy strike in support of other striking workers.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Trade union strike ballots.
Old value:: Trade unions are not required by law to hold a ballot before striking.
Current: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, a majority of all members, regardless of if they vote or not must approve the strike action.
Proposed: Trade unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:39:13, February 11, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Strike Act |
| Message | Whilst this is my preferred legislation as I don't really think that secondary strike action is ever really necessary or justified, and i do think that strike balloting is necessary with safeguards to ensure that unions are not 'hijacked' my small numbers of militants hell bent on causing disruption, i am prepared to compromise on this if people prefer, with the following amendments: ARTICLE 1: Only closely related trade unions can walk out on a sympathy strike in support of other striking workers ARTICLE 2: Trade Unions must by law hold a ballot of all members before going on strike, majority approval of those that vote is needed from its members Whilst I don't think these are wonderful, I suppose that if for example you have 2 postal unions, you could allow one to strike in support of the other and I suppose that so long as all members are notified of a strike ballot, then that would suffice in the majority of situations to prevent militants from hijacking the system. |
| Date | 22:36:04, February 12, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Strike Act |
| Message | would people like to comment? Do people prefer the bill as it is, or are the compromise options more preferable? |
| Date | 23:36:24, February 15, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Strike Act |
| Message | seeing as noone has commented, I will propose the compromise legislation and we can always tighten it up later |
| Date | 09:08:03, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Strike Act |
| Message | As trade unions must have democratic means of electing leadership we see no reason to have double safeguard against small groups of militants. We do not see that small groups of militants stand a chance of hijacking unions in a system where unions have a well defined and legitimate role in society. This, in our opinion, explains the relative peacefulness of unions in all countries where a large proportion of the working population is unionised. In the Nordic countries, as well as Belgium and Austria, that have over 50 % of workers unionised (including the highly eduated) have much more stable labour markets than systems where unions have a less significant role. Unions act very much as a stabilizing force in those societies. Contrastingly, in societies where unions have to constantly battle for their right to exist and represent workers, the unions are much more often hijacked by the militants. This is only natural, because the only way to be taken seriously in many of those societies is to use force. In the societies where unions have a legitimate role in the labour market, strikes are not very common and are very rarely out of control. Thus we see that to ensure stability of our labour markets we must encourage membership in labour unions and not hamper their activities in defending their members. Limiting unions' rights to defend their interests only fuels the militants, as it forces the unions to use radical means to achieve their objectives. In short we oppose the proposed legislation. |
| Date | 11:06:38, February 16, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Strike Act |
| Message | OOC: I'm not an expert on this subject - all I can do is look at the UK in the 1960's & 70's and then today and then look at somewhere like France. We still believe that it would be possible for militants to hijack unions - though whether or not that would happen is a completely different (and irrelevent) matter. We still fail to understand why if a postal union goes on strike over say its pay a railway workers union or a teachers union should feel the need to join them, ok another postal union or similar might have a legitimate right but not the rest - secondary strike action is almost never necessary unless your goal is to unnecessarily disrupt society. So, we are allowing related unions to strike in support of each other, but not any old union. Thirdly, as you say, the leaderships are democratically elected, but should it not be for members to decide whether or not their union goes on strike, rather than a small number of leaders - do they not have a democratic right to decide this. Finally, we believe that unions can play an important role in society and that employers should work with unions to improve conditions for and to consult their workers and to this degree stability within the labour market is good, but we should not go for stability over flexibility - it is crucial that the labour market be flexible allowing businesses to adapt to changing circumstances and economic climates. |
| Date | 15:13:49, February 16, 2006 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Strike Act |
| Message | Not that non-Canadians will get this but, Buzz Hargrove... 'nough said. (Buzz is the VERY militant leader of the Canadian Auto Workers) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 237 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 106 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 12 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." - Robert Louis Stevenson |