Union Protection Act II
-
I have to vehemently disagree the EU has no role on standards in protecting basic rights. Right to unionisation of some type is a basic right and employees should never be penalised for seeking to unionise. I get euroscepticism over introducing new powers but this protection of basic labour rights is essential .
James Mizrachi-Roscoe councillour for United Duchies
-
I cannot thank Comrade Tilkanas enough for proposing this incredibly important and vital piece of legislation, as well as for their ongoing perseverance in ensuring that the finest version of this Act is passed so that the workers of Europe are best protected and emancipated. It is absolutely imperative that workers have legally-encoded rights to their own unions and bargaining power. While this Act may require further amendments, I see no reason why it should be defeated, and I hope that it is eventually passed.
I only have three recommendations to improve this piece of legislation.
Firstly, the right to recourse mentioned in Section II Clause VII probably needs a corresponding definition in the definitions section. The term 'recourse' can mean various things, specifically when talking about the right to recourse in legalese terms, and so it opens up that specific clause to a lot of open-ended interpretation. A short yet precise definition could remedy this.
Secondly, Section II Clause IV is incredibly open-ended, and essentially insinuates that labour unions should be free of absolutely all outside interference, which would also include the state and the state's own laws concerning labour unions and union codes. While I wholeheartedly support the autonomy of unions, I think it is reasonable that the state might have labour codes which pertain to the governance and administration of unions, such as a gender quotas for boards - just as an example. This specific clause also clashes with other clauses in the Act, most notably Section III Clause III. Section III Clause III is basically the same version of this clause, but respects national law. Since Section III Clause III exists anyway, and is a better version of this clause, I think Section II Clause IV is basically superfluous and should be removed or be amended to be more congruent.
Thirdly, Section II Clause VI and Section III VII are carbon copies of each other. Having them both is superfluous. The one in Section III should probably be removed.
With these comments in mind, I wholeheartedly give this Act my approval.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
I wholeheartedly support the noble effort of Councillor Tilkanas to enshrine basic rights of the Labour Unions and therefore the workers themselves into the European law. It is a much needed step towards a just Europe.
Just as Councillor Lellana I think that Section II Clause IV should be however changed. Let us also not forget about Labour Unions that might be organized by political parties. Unless we aim to effectively forbid political parties from forming their own labour unions, which I don't think should be the aim, the text needs to be changed, as the affairs of the political party, for instance planning a demonstration in which the party organized union should take place, could be interpreted as either direct or indirect interference.
In all other other points raised by Councillor Lallana I also back her. And like her I am ready to support this Act.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
Thank you Councillor Tilkanas for your proposal.
This act is quite better when it comes to the first proposal, but to my point of view it's still not needed. In my opinion, there are some things that under my point of view should be met by "key proposals", like this, to be supported by me. There's one I would really like to remark: "key legislation should have as much support as possible, but should avoid creating conflicts between the European Union and member states". Of course, if we talk about minor legislation, this is something that can be overseen, but not when we talk about Labour Unions.
I still think this act needs some amending and I'm waiting to see what is going to happen with the amendments' ideas from the Councillor for Inquista, Bp. Karinn Lallana; but this is once again supported by just the 3 Party of the European Left tenors and I think my colleague Ms. Granger; while it also has a huge (2) part of the Council, as it stands, against it. So we should be careful about what we let pass because seeing the cohesion the Union has at the moment, none, if we don't want the Union to definitely break up in several pieces and become a mess.
Now, onto the legislation purpose, I really think Labour Unions play a very important and relevant role on a country by defending workers. We are lucky, in fact, that many of our countries have labour unions, and we should commend those countries that are investing their efforts on protecting them. But maybe, assuring them at an European level while create more problems than solutions. If this act ends up having a very considerable support, I will support it if amended because I agree with it. But if the things remain as they are, I need to be responsible with the European Union's spirit which is unity in diversity and vote against it.
Thank you very much.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I have no idea what you are trying to say, Councillor Tusk, except that you will oppose this act if Councillors do not vote for it and support it if they do, which is not something I, nor anyone else, in this chamber can rectify. If this is a violation of sovereignty, and, for example, marriage equality, which is of course of similar importance and necessity, is not, then I have no idea what sovereignty is anymore. Could you please, at the very least, elaborate on what exactly you mean so that I can address this problem?
In response to the issues raised by Councillors Lallana and Kohout, I propose the following amendments:
AMENDMENT I
IV. Labor unions shall be free of acts of interference by outside actors. In all cases, regardless of ownership, they shall be self-governed. Attempts to subjugate labor unions to an employer, employers, or employers' organization(s) by interfering in their internal administration and activities whether direct or indirect and through any means, are considered acts of interference and are thus prohibited, although acts of interference are not limited to these.AMENDMENT II
I. Definitions
I. Labor union - an organization of workers who have come together to further and/or defend their interests.
II. Cartel - a group of independent participants in the economy who collude as to improve profits and/or establish a monopoly
III. Strike - a mass refusal of employees to work, most often a result of grievances.
IV. RIght to recourse - the ability of a party in a given conflict to contact and utilize a third party for the purpose of intevention in the conflict.
I don't feel as though I can address Councillor Lallana's third point, however, as the two sections outline slightly different things, meaning that the exception made could in itself have exceptions.
Iras Tilkanas
COuncillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Debate is now over. Once again, sorry for the severe delays the Council is suffering at the moment. It is time to vote on amendments. There are TWO amendments, both of them proposed by Councillor Tilkanas. The amendments are thus:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
Section II - Rights
IV. Labor unions shall be free of acts of interference by outside actors. In all cases, regardless of ownership, they shall be self-governed. Attempts to subjugate labor unions to an employer, employers, or employers' organization(s) by interfering in their internal administration and activities whether direct or indirect and through any means, are considered acts of interference and are thus prohibited, although acts of interference are not limited to these.Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Tilkanas
Section I - Definitions
IV. RIght to recourse - the ability of a party in a given conflict to contact and utilize a third party for the purpose of intevention in the conflict.
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 22:56 GMT on October 4th, 2021.
I vote FOR both amendments.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I vote FOR both amendments.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
I vote FOR both amendments.
Paul-Gabrielle Muzhare
EU-Councillor for the Republic of Nofoaga -
I vote FOR both amendments.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
Voting on amendments has concluded. With 4 votes FOR and none AGAINST, Amendment I has PASSED. With 4 votes FOR and none AGAINST, Amendment II has PASSED.
The bill has been updated to reflect the passed amendments.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 17:58 GMT on October 10th, 2021.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this act.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Republic of Istkalen, I vote FOR this act.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
The Empire of Inimicus stands AGAINST this Act.
Cllr Nicholas Benfield
-
On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this Act.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote FOR this act
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillour for United Duchies -
Voting has now concluded. With 3 votes FOR and 2 votes AGAINST, this bill has PASSED.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
