ADVENT | Organizations
The Bureau of Labor and Organization
"Let us be clear about expectations – my job is to make you irrelevant. Your job is to prevent that. This is a competition, and may the best player win."
- Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director, in the first address to Union leaders
TAMPA – Businesses around the world are now grappling with a massive expansion of unions that have formed – ones which have sprung up as the result of ADVENT initiatives encouraging union formation and sustainability. Spearheaded by the ADVENT Bureau of Labor and Organization, this initiative is one of many by the Chief Labor Director Raul Soriano, which aims to tackle the contentious sector of workplace organization.
"Workers deserve an advocate in the government," Soriano said in a statement. "ADVENT recognizes the contributions and benefits of unionization, and believes that they should be supported whenever possible. We do not believe they should be mandated, but there should be no obstacles to establishing one should workers desire it."
"Too often, there is a pervasive cultural and very tangible fear that taking such steps would lead to retaliation. Without explicit government support, this has happened too many times, and led to many workplace abuses and damaging cultures. Government has, unfortunately, played a role in workplace abuse by corporations, and it is past time that we make a legitimate effort to undo this damage."
This unusually strong statement is one that is reflected in the policies of the Labor Bureau, which stands as one of the largest and most expansive departments within ADVENT, aiming to encourage and support unionization, promote alternative forms of workplace management, and set and enforce labor standards worldwide.
Unions across the world have praised the actions undertaken by the former Spanish labor advocate and union leader, saying that it was a "surprising, but encouraging stance, and we are looking forward to working closely with ADVENT to ensure that their vision and our own needs are addressed."
ADVENT has also been in talks with several international labor organizations to formalize their role as a non-government entity and centralized body to help manage the coalition of thousands of unions across the world. "This was not an expected development," one of the organizers was quoted as saying. "At best we're ignored, at worst we're targeted. We're not convinced of ADVENT's intentions, but if they want to talk to us in good faith, we'll return the favor."
Members of all the organizations expressed hopes for the upcoming summit, which is scheduled to take place in one month.
Soriano has also taken the unprecedented step of both encouraging a union within the Bureau of Labor and Organization, as well as instituting what is commonly known as "workplace democracy", a rare system derived from workplace cooperatives where workers have a say (usually through voting) in workplace decisions and promotions.
The first internal elections have been set for two years, which Soriano has stated is necessary to allow time for the Labor Bureau to establish itself. He has stated that he has requested Oversight audits and reviews on a quarterly basis to further establish if the Bureau is up to a completely functional standard, and promised that if elections can be done earlier, they will be.
This has been received positively by employees of the Labor Bureau, and has sparked the question of if this kind of workplace management will ever be applied to other departments and divisions in ADVENT. ADVENT officials have not released any statement on the possibility, and referred any questions on internal ADVENT labor standards and management to the Bureau of Labor and Organization.
Several major corporations have expressed their opposition to this push for unionization, as executives from several corporations released a joint statement in which they accused ADVENT of "putting their finger on the scale to disrupt an organizational method which has been working for decades in favor of populist rhetoric."
In the statement they warned that workplace disruptions "brought about as the result of employee demands" may hurt the war effort and lead to systemic failures across the front lines. They stated that "While we do not expect ADVENT to inherently support all organizational models, the role of the government is to be a neutral arbiter, and allow the consumers to decide which kind of businesses they wish to support," insinuating that encouraging any side imposes an unfair advantage, as the opposing side is likely to be more wary of going against the government.
Similar statements have been made by international corporations, including major water and food distributors, diamond mine owners, and energy miners, who warned that these new standards would cause major disruptions to worldwide supply lines, and cautioned on enacting any "radical" policies.
"We are concerned that ADVENT has not fully considered the ramifications of their proposals," a Nestlé executive was quoted as saying. "There are critical sectors that soldiers currently fighting are relying on, and a complete restructuring of the workplace environment will damage this, and potentially cause unthinkable damage to the war effort."
Major clothing corporations have also warned that the new regulations would almost certainly result in significant price increases, warning that "consumers will soon learn the cost of these radical policies. While we may wish to operate as a charity, we cannot survive off of goodwill, and ADVENT has shown its commitment to driving those who do not adhere to their ideology out of business."
ADVENT has responded by releasing, or re-releasing in some cases, several reports that detail labor abuses, particularly in previously low-wage environments such as Asia. This was followed up by the arrest of a number of executives for tax fraud, and the public release of the tax returns of every corporation that expressed opposition to these new standards.
This has resulted in several high-profile resignations, and there is currently a slew of ADVENT-supported labor lawsuits being filed across the world.
ADVENT also stated that they are willing to provide official mediators "in the event of a workplace dispute between the listed corporations, and any unions which may be, or are already, created."
While the full effects of this worldwide shift will likely not manifest for years to come, it is yet another way in which ADVENT is changing the world – one which many people appear to believe is for the better.
- Article: "After Unionization Push, Workers and Corporations Deal with the Ramifications"
ADVENT
BUREAU OF LABOR AND ORGANIZATION
OFFICIAL GUIDANCE | WORKER COOPERATIVES
OVERVIEW: As ADVENT works to transform the world at home and in the private sector, we have directed our experts to look at various systems around the world which could be enhanced and applied to your very own initiative. Starting a business is a daunting task, and ADVENT is here to help ensure its success.
One of the first decisions that you will make is how you wish your business to be run. Traditionally this has not been an emphasized choice at all, and most have defaulted to a traditional hierarchical employment model, which has been used and seen success all around the world. However, ADVENT wishes to inform prospective business owners that there are additional options they may want to consider, and may be a better fit for the business you are looking to start.
WHAT IS IT? Worker Cooperatives, or Worker Co-ops as they are sometimes referred to as, are a form of organization where the workers in a business or corporation have a tangible stake and say in the organization, profits, and leadership of the workplace. This can range from workplace democracy where leaders and executives are elected to their positions, workers come to an agreement on their pay depending on position, or how much workers make from the profits of the workplace.
While traditionally rare, there have been cases of worker cooperatives being successful on par with their traditional peers - the most successful of which has been Mondragon, and additional studies have been conducted that show that workers are more engaged and happy with their jobs, leading to business retention. It should be emphasized that there are different forms a cooperative can take, but the core is that your workers or employees have a significant and tangible say in how it is run.
QUESTIONS AND MYTHS: Worker cooperatives have been subject to some misinformation and myths which have permeated all non-traditional forms of business ownership. This will briefly address some of the common ones, and reasons for why they are false.
Myth: Worker Cooperatives are Disorganized – Worker cooperatives can be just as organized as their traditional counterparts, or in some cases even more so. It is important to remember that the core of worker cooperatives is worker involvement – this does not mean that workers cannot be assigned roles, jobs, or have different responsibilities.
Myth: All workers must be treated the Same – There is nothing that stipulates that all pay or responsibilities must be equal. Workers have different skills and abilities, and your business will require diversity. There is nothing preventing some responsibilities being worth more than others. So long as workers are involved in the process, then there is nothing impossible or wrong with role inequality, as some roles will naturally have more responsibility than others.
Myth: Worker Cooperatives are not Profitable – Worker cooperatives have been found to be just as successful monetarily as their traditional counterparts. The differences primarily come from that workers tend to make higher wages, and in some cases are entitled to the share of the profits. While owners may make less overall money through cooperatives, there is no evidence to indicate this has hampered the overall success of businesses in any way.
Myth: Worker Cooperatives encourage Laziness – Just because workers have greater say in cooperatives does not mean it is an excuse for incompetence or laziness. It is expected that employees who do not perform their tasks will have cause for dismissal. No one is entitled to a job, but those who are part of a cooperative are entitled to have a say in how it is run.
Myth: Worker Cooperatives are not Supported: ADVENT has made a direct decision to support businesses which employ traditional and non-traditional methods of managing the workplace – of which this includes worker cooperatives. These are entitled to the same benefits and programs offered by the Department of Business Development, Oversight, and Assimilation.
For more information, or to speak with experts and business leaders who have employed this model, please reach out to the Bureau of Labor and Organization at the time and method of your choice!
The existence of the Union is a societal failure.
An incendiary statement which is nonetheless one that is true. In an ideal society, the purpose of unions would be useless, as their reasons for existence would have been addressed. In an ideal society, we would know how to treat one another in such a way so as not to force groups to form to ensure that their basic needs, and a modicum of respect, is given.
Let us go back to the start for why unions exist in the first place. The core of them is always the same – to advocate for the workers and ensure they are not exploited by owners or the powerful. This is because, historically, workers have been continually exploited, and even to this day are exploited and abused.
The appearances change, but the mindset does not. You will not see military helicopters firing on strikers, or owners running over picket lines with their trucks anymore – but you will see the threat of termination from a job people rely on, the corruption of political bodies to further deregulate the workplace, and elaborate propaganda campaigns to convince the worker that they should not know their own interests.
It cannot be understated just how much control the unelected and powerful owners, boards of directors, and other ruling corporate classes wield over workers – especially those who have the most to lose. The current systems are built not to support the least powerful, but those who have the most.
It is continually amusing and disheartening to see that the uneducated ignore the power dynamics of workplaces – where 'volunteering', 'assisting' and other such euphemisms are employed to make employees work longer hours, with little or no compensation, or undertake work that could even be strenuous or dangerous. This is coercion, with the unstated threat being termination or wage cuts for those who are deemed 'unproductive'.
This is the ultimate end-state of what is traditionally understood as the capitalist system, upon which the majority of the world functions. The pursuit of profit at the expense of all else is one which will ultimately lead to the collapse of what we understand as modern society – there is only so long that a minority can abuse a majority before there are violent consequences.
To their credit, there are those who realize this, which is why they will allow unions to represent their interests – and instead merely move to co-opt them and render such an avenue no threat to their power. This is seen in some unions which are little more than money laundering schemes no better than the corporations they seek to curtail. Most of all, the goals of unions are ultimately one of pacification – unions exist to solve problems – once those problems are solved, their purpose is ended.
There is no fight beyond the necessary. Which ultimately results in an eventual regression where this cycle will repeat over and over again.
This seems to reach an impasse, one which threatens to have no permanent solution. It is certain that the conditions, rights, and representation of workers will never reach the state where they should if their fate relies on the corporations and unions. Arguably, the profit-driven capitalist society is also a permanent roadblock to this state, but theoretically this can be incorporated, as the most destructive element is the elevation of profit – not the buying and selling of goods and services.
Corporations cannot be relied upon to reform themselves. It is a fool's errand, and even should they make token changes to their policies, it is almost certain they will revert them in the future when new leadership takes hold, or cultural and political tensions affect the discourse. Traditional corporations cannot be trusted with the well-being of the worker – there can be no exceptions.
By the same token, the union alone is not reliable to achieving sustainable change. Workers, rightfully, do not wish to be activists and primarily participate because they are denied basic necessities, pay, and respect for the work they do. Should these needs be met, you would see the memberships (and purpose) of unions drop dramatically.
There is a sense that the fight is the end in and of itself, when the reality is the actual state for labor should be past the bare minimum. However the fight to get to such a place is often so long that people will be willing to take the bare minimum and not push forward. Inevitably, this will result in backsliding over decades and this cycle will repeat again.
Thus, the only means of preventing the abuses of corporations, and maintaining the gains of unions, is through the state. While this is a radical proposal, especially to those who will rightfully point out the many times when the state has intervened against the worker, it is also the only viable long-term solution to break long and repeated cycles of abuse, reform, and backsliding.
The state is the most powerful entity in the nation-state, and the only one which ultimately matters. International bodies, organizations, and groups are useless and lack any real power to do anything beyond press releases. There is a strategy towards organizing and enacting a society and culture which enshrines the needs, protections and rights of workers of all kinds – and it requires the state as an ally, as the state is the only entity which can address this issue permanently.
As if the state was able to perform this, the need for a union would not exist – and that is what we all wish for, is it not? Not realistic, of course, but as all of us wish that the need for armed forces did not exist, so too should we wish that unions do not need to exist. Yet Human nature demands such entities exist – and they should be supported fiercely until there is no further need.
Which begs the logical question – how can this be done?
The harsh, but truthful answer is that no one knows. I certainly don't.
It is one thing to know the ultimate solution to this problem, yet very much another to apply it in a meaningful way. The political realities across the world and the excesses of the capitalist system continuing to worsen make the possibility of the state as an ally one that is extremely limited.
The fracturing of the world, the divisions within cultures, peoples, and nations further lessen the possibility of systemic change. It is impossible for worker solidarity to exist in any tangible form, as the value systems throughout the world are radically different, and the cowardice of international organizations will allow this repression to continue with little more than a half-hearted condemnation.
There will not be another workers' revolution in the world, or if there is one, it will not achieve what the hopeful amongst the idealogues wish. Any violent revolution against the state will follow the path of the Soviet Union, or worse, be hijacked by fascist, nationalist, or racist extremists who will promise the workers what they want, while they guide the new state to something even worse.
A bleak picture, as it seems clear right now. It is difficult to rely on the existing governments to change outside of a tacit acceptance of the minimum – which is admittedly easily livable, of course. The issue, of course, is that this will not last. Hardships will be coming, and backsliding is inevitable.
This we must seek to prevent, though without a cataclysmic event, it will be a long time, if ever, until this is achieved.
However, unlike some of my peers, I am an optimist. I believe that this change is possible – it only requires that when we see the opportunities, they are seized.
- Article | End of the Union – Why Only the State can Bring Permanent Change by Raul Soriano
To: Keith Watkins
From: Raul Soriano
Subject: Regarding Your Notations
Chief Watkins, a good day to you, and hope this finds you well.
In response to our earlier conversation, I've taken the time to look into some of the issues you've highlighted, as well as done some additional research of my own. I appreciate how ADVENT is quite efficient in making it simple to connect to those you need to, and I was able to gain some additional context and information.
To summarize, I do believe there is a mechanism which can be implemented – from a labor perspective – which has the potential to serve as a check on military operations of questionable impact. Scipio is a horrific action, though from my understanding, this is intentional for a greater purpose. While I cannot agree with this reasoning, I can see why ADVENT had accepted that argument, though from your own statements, this is something that shouldn't have passed Oversight.
Nonetheless, the issue I will have is one that I am currently dealing with, namely the internal management of the ADVENT labor force. While the Bureau has extensive authority over the private sector unionization and labor standards, this has not applied to the internal ADVENT workplaces as of yet. Now that I am properly in my position, I am looking to address this more directly, but it is unlikely this will take off without cross-agency and ADVENT support, particularly from the major stakeholders such as the Executive Branch, Oversight Division, and the Congress of Nations.
The military is a different beast entirely. Soldiers have always been under a unique labor umbrella, one which is not viewed as 'labor' in the traditional sense, which has been justified due to the nature of their work and strong military influence that insists that military and civilian matters be kept separate.
No, I do not agree with this, but the precedent is stacked quite heavily against this, and it will be difficult to bring the ADVENT Military in line to where it should be from a labor perspective. What I would propose instead is a gradual approach, with military support and input, and with your support, I believe that we can begin moving the armed forces into a place where the soldiers themselves can serve as a check on things against Scipio.
I would initially propose a form of military democratization (I've attached the respective documents), an idea of which has been submitted by some soldiers and officers which I believe has promise. If I can convince Commander Christiaens of the viability of this, it will be a major step towards what I (and you) want to do.
Commander Christiaens is a military woman, and will be difficult to convince, but she is not unreasonable, and I believe she can be convinced should there be a combination of strong argument and outside pressure. I will soon reach out to her about this.
Sincerely,
- Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director
-x-
To: Raul Soriano
From: Keith Watkins
Subject: RE: Regarding Your Notations
Soriano, thank you, for now I'm doing well,
I've reviewed the documents you've sent, and I concur that it's a strong idea and a good first step. I also believe that Commander Christiaens will have concerns, but ones which you will likely be able to properly address. While both of us have our differences, she is a reasonable woman and can be convinced with a sound argument.
If you also need additional support or pressure, I can work to provide that. There are a number of individuals in the Congress who I believe are aligned on this matter, and due to the nature of it, I suspect this number can be improved. If it is public pressure that is needed, they would likely be willing to provide it, though I will state that public pressure is historically not an effective tool against ADVENT policy. Argument and logic have, and will continue to be, the most effective tool in any arsenal.
I'm glad that we're aligned on a vision for where we want the ADVENT military to be from a labor perspective, and I will be following up on later dates to see the progress on this. Good luck in your other efforts.
- Keith Watkins, Chief Overseer of the Oversight Division
Transcript between Chief Labor Director Raul Soriano and Representative Fiorella Aherna
[Fiorella Aherna]: "I've reviewed your proposals for it."
[Raul Soriano]: "And? Good things I hope?"
[FA]: "My personal inclination is to ask if you're insane."
[RS]: "…in a good or bad way?"
[FA]: "Mostly good…honestly, your heart is in the right place. The issue I have, and that I know someone is going to bring up to you, is that there are implications that you didn't consider."
[RS]: "On the contrary, I took everything I could into consideration."
[FA]: "This has no failsafes in the event that something goes wrong. What authority do we have to intervene if a bunch of miners or oil workers decide to strike and delay crucial resources to the front lines? This has the opportunity to fully fuck with the supply lines in a way that every general is going to come down on you for."
[RS]: "Technically, we can't exactly do anything now anyway. If anything, in this pretend scenario, we will have more influence since we can act as an arbiter. More importantly? I don't think we have to worry about that. In times like this, and given the right reasons? People will not do drastic things."
[FA]: "Do you not know what Humans are? We make some pretty irrational decisions, and we're selfish, egotistical, and greedy."
[RS]: "You don't have a high opinion of people, do you?"
[FA]: "Not especially, and ADVENT is smart enough to also realize that. Collectively our species is not smart. We're too self-destructive and mob-like for our own good. I don't really understand why you went this direction – especially when we are in a war?"
[RS]: "Mhmm, and tell me when would be the time to do this?"
[FA]: "Don't look at me like that. The labor regulation plans? Fully on board, we need to have standards. We need to prevent workplace abuses. What we don't need? A bunch of unions cropping up and picking a fight, and now emboldened because we decided that's something to be encouraged."
[RS]: "I'll repeat my question."
[FA]: If this is where you want to take it, then do it after the war. When we're not facing an existential threat."
[RS]: "I've heard that all my life, and it never seemed right to me before, and it doesn't seem right now. How long have people been told to 'wait' for things to happen, and 'let the system work'. Or that 'iteration is necessary for improvement'. No. For the first time, ADVENT is embracing the fact that we've spent too long waiting for change, necessary change to happen. No more waiting."
[FA]: "Within reason-"
[RS]: "Do tell me what part of ADVENT is reasonable. ADVENT has destroyed the old system completely, and instituted something new in its place. That is not the actions of a reasonable entity – it is the actions of those who understand that radical change is needed, and there is no time for waiting. We don't need reform in one year, five years, or ten years – we need it now. Do you think ADVENT recruited me so I could just perpetuate the status quo?"
[FA]: "No, because they expected you to make it better."
[RS]: "And that is exactly what I am doing. If ADVENT disagrees, I'm fully sure that the data will be used against me. Fortunately, I have that on my side, so I'm not particularly concerned about people in ADVENT grumbling."
[FA]: "My question now is what do you think happens when the war drags on, and we'll need to start rationing? We're going to reach that point sometime…and we will need to keep our soldiers fed. With this…the people won't accept it now. They'll be unwilling to sacrifice, even if it's for their own survival, since they now have power – no matter how small – to try and force us to intervene. And if enough of them do so…the safeguards you have now just aren't good enough."
[RS]: "And there, I think, we disagree. Humanity is many things, but when it matters, we will come together. We just need to have a little faith and trust in each other. Humans, when it comes down to it, want to work together. We will sacrifice for each other, we will help each other, we want to do that. If what you're saying ever happens? I have no worries or fears. I may be wrong, of course, but I am not afraid."
[FA]: "We'll see, Raul. It will be on you if you're wrong."
"Odd? Yeah, odd. I think that's a good description. Something I guess you could apply to most of ADVENT for that matter."
"Why? ADVENT or the Labor Bureau? Labor? Ok, well it goes back to the union-government relationship which, in nearly all cases, is not exactly a good one. It's all about control, you see; control over workers, control over the workplace. Unions are something that stands in the way of that, when it works."
"Trust me when I say that companies will take and exploit any loopholes and options they have to either prevent unions from forming or sabotage them when they succeed. Look at America for an example of what happens when unions lose the cultural battle, where before ADVENT, they were a toothless, fringe thing that didn't exactly have a lot of political relevancy, and the largest ones were emblematic of corruption at the highest levels."
"It's better for us in Europe for the most part, but that's more because the government mostly stayed out of it and let the unions do their own thing. The most we really expected and wanted was for the government to support unions, and they did that. Frankly, that is all that we needed them to do, and things worked out good."
"Now with that background, when ADVENT says that they are looking to take an active role in workplace disputes, unions, and so on, people get nervous. Myself included, since historically, governments directly intervening in workplaces was never a good thing for workers. Given ADVENT's…insistence on ideological cohesion to their new world order, it was more foreboding than anything else."
"The Labor director? Never heard of him before, so that didn't reassure me. I don't keep up with Spanish activists, though the fact that he is…or was, some kind of labor activist…politician…that's good. Not that it necessarily means anything since people will sell out if they get a good enough incentive, but it's better than hiring some former executive or Wall Street goon."
"So even though this is supposed to be a red flag…as of right now, I can't really say that anything ADVENT's done has been bad. In fact, it's suspiciously encouraging. I never thought I'd see the day where governments actually seem to be directly encouraging and supporting unions, or promoting worker cooperatives."
"Odd, as I said. I'm waiting for the catch."
"Yeah, of course there are qualifications for ADVENT aid, but they're pretty standard 'follow the law' type things. Which granted, ADVENT is strict about enforcing. Having ADVENT directly provide union management or administrative salaries is…not great, I'll admit, but I imagine they did that to prevent corruption. I do see that as a potential problem, especially since it gives ADVENT a lot of sway over leadership."
"The thing is, they haven't done that yet. I've been working for…decades now. I know a lot of people, from the workers to the guys running the unions. Great guys, really. All of them have been shocked at how fair ADVENT is being. Downright supportive, even. They're looking for the catch, same as all of us. Right now? There doesn't seem to be one."
"See, that's a good question – I don't know if ADVENT is going to pull the rug from under us one day. ADVENT definitely isn't like the old governments, and for once, my instinct is to say that things will stay the same. I hope they do. If ADVENT's smart, they'll keep doing what they're doing."
"If they want to get the common man on board their new world order? This is the way."
- Steel Worker Eric Seder to Journalist Jessica Wong
To: Laura Christiaens
From: Raul Soriano
Subject: Military Democratization Proposal
Commander Christiaens, I hope this message finds you well, I can imagine that the management of the conflict is tiring. Nonetheless, this is a matter that requires your attention and input, as I believe this should be handled directly before any unilateral decisions are made.
Of late, I have received several well-designed proposals from several soldiers and officers who have effectively proposed the expansion of what is commonly known as "workplace democracy" into the armed forces. If you are unaware of this initiative, it effectively is a form of organization where the employees and workers of a business or corporation have democratic input into their place of employment. This can lead to choosing the leaders, the pay, and other workplace elements.
Now, the part that is relevant is that these proposals revolve around soldiers choosing their officers, sergeants, and other ranking superiors. ADVENT has been promoting worker cooperatives and workplace democracy in addition to traditional forms of organization, which I believe inspired these particular proposals. While limited in scope compared to some of the private sector analogues, it is an idea which does seem to be feasible.
I have attached the proposals (with names redacted, of course) for you to overlook for yourself. As the ADVENT Military is your specialty, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. I am supportive of the initiative, with some refining.
Awaiting your response,
- Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director
-x-
To: Raul Soriano
From: Laura Christiaens
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Chief Soriano, a pleasure to hear from you, the war continues, but I am managing as fine as can be expected.
To be completely honest, I am unsure if this is intended to be a joke or not. While I was about to compliment your humor, a read through of the proposals you attached appears to indicate you are very serious about this. Respectfully, I do not think you know what you are asking, or are familiar with the dynamics, purpose, or structure of the military.
To be as diplomatic as I can, I am very skeptical of applying this particular idea to the military in any serious capacity.
I'm surprised that I need to say this, but the military is not a business or corporation, nor is it a political body. It is an organ that is subordinate to the state, and this is how it has always functioned. Ignoring the significant disruption to the existing military structure, the ramifications of even a small-scale democratization such as this may trigger additional demands across ADVENT agencies. While this may be an intended effect, it nonetheless has significant risks and ramifications beyond the ADVENT Military.
The last thing the world - and military - needs is additional politicization. Beyond that, I have significant concerns on the quality of candidates, as well as the judgement of soldiers. There is a reason that officers are selected, and there is a very strong likelihood that should soldiers be given the option to choose their superiors, they will select them based on unconscious biases and personal preferences – not which one is most deserving or is qualified.
Officers are also not chosen from just anyone - the military is a position where people are placed in difficult and dangerous decisions. They must be capable of not only leading soldiers, but making decisions that are difficult or hard. A soldier who may be otherwise qualified may simply not have the right mindset to function in a high-stress environment. The rank and file soldiers will not take these factors into account, despite the fact they are and have been the difference between life and death.
I have many experiences with soldiers, enough to know the mindsets of them, and enough to state with confidence that democratization would not be a positive direction for the ADVENT Military. I can understand your desire to advocate for this option – however I believe I must state my opposition to this idea proceeding further.
With that said, I am willing to consider your counter-argument to what I've laid out, as I cannot imagine that you would not have considered these points.
Sincerely,
- Commander Laura Christiaens
-x-
To: Laura Christiaens
From: Raul Soriano
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Commander, thank you for the prompt response, and for keeping an open mind. You would not believe how many individuals I speak to, especially those in positions of leadership, who reject the idea out of hand based on their preconceptions of the concept. I respect your view, one that is no doubt informed from your years of service.
As you requested, let me provide a counter argument.
First, I would like to clarify that under no circumstances would any proposal ever put forward candidates for promotion who are not fully qualified for their position - physically, experience-wise, and mentally. While I would need to confirm with Election Oversight, I am certain that they would insist on standards that are just as, if not more strict than our own elected representatives.
We would be putting the choice to the soldiers between two or more qualified people. I believe that letting the soldiers choose who commands or leads them into battle would give them greater confidence in the mission, and greater loyalty to ADVENT as they had a hand in selecting their superior. You would no doubt agree that this is a positive effect, and there are many studies that show that workers who are invested in their work are more likely to contribute more deeply to it - and soldiers are not exempt from this.
While the military and traditional jobs are not quite the same, the principles are, and soldiers who are committed are nothing but a benefit. Giving them choices, no matter how small, are important. Additionally, you would no doubt be aware that sometimes leadership is not always in tune with the needs or beliefs of soldiers – this would help alleviate the problem, as superiors can make mistakes. While this would not of course preclude soldiers making mistakes, it could certainly reduce mistaken assignments made without consulting soldiers in question.
There is a major open question on how far this democracy would extend up – I am not opposed to it being kept to the Battalion level or even lower. As a proponent of workplace democracy, I am - personally, mind you - open to everyone – including the Commander of the ADVENT Military, being chosen democratically, but I understand that this may be too great a demand, especially considering the current circumstances of the conflict.
And of course, this would not be something that we develop on our own – we would do it in conjunction with yourself and Election Oversight. There are many stakeholders here, but I firmly believe that the advantages of moving to this system heavily outweigh the negatives, and at minimum I believe this should be settled through an independent study, as both of us are biased towards our own points of view.
Awaiting your response,
- Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director
-x-
To: Raul Soriano
From: Laura Christiaens
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Director, appreciate your response, and your comments, and allow me to make some clarifications.
When I say that soldiers will not necessarily make the best voters, that does not have anything to do with the quality of the candidates. I have no doubt that, in such a scenario, all candidates will be qualified for the position - that is frankly a non-negotiable demand for anything resembling this to be taken seriously. However this is greater than just qualifications, those alone are not inherently the problem. Perhaps the largest issue is that this will throw a significant wrench into how we are working to integrate and diversify the armed forces.
ADVENT is making a point to elevate foreigners and minorities throughout the Military, both to increase intraspecies cohesion, and reduce the stranglehold native militaries hold over their legions. For better or worse, Humans are most comfortable with the familiar. This is a fact, and one which poses a significant problem to the concept of democratization.
If we were to do this, soldiers will vote for the person who best reflects them. This is most often reflective of the majority of the soldiers, particularly gender, ethnicity, political leanings, and religion. These are subconscious influences. Personality is important, but this becomes less relevant the higher the ranks.
Consider an American legion – if you were to put forward two candidates, one a female African-American who has been passed over for promotion twice, and a male Caucasian who has just been put forward for the first time, in nearly all circumstances, the soldiers, especially those with who have interacted little with either candidate, will default to the latter. I do not put forward this example to make a commentary, but to establish the fact.
This definition of 'default' varies from nation to nation and region. Chinese legions will gravitate towards Han ethnic males. Middle Eastern legions will default to Muslim Arabs. Men in general are the natural leaders soldiers gravitate to, and racial and secondary biases come into place later.
I dislike referencing my gender in regards to my service, as it is too often a distraction, but I would be remiss if I did not cite my very real experience in regards to promotion and how women are viewed within and outside the military. Frankly speaking, in a democratic system, I would never have been selected to be Commander of the ADVENT Military, and my gender would have played an outsized role in that. Speak to any female officer, and they will cite similar experiences. This is not getting into nationality – soldiers will always prefer a native to someone they view as a foreigner.
The ADVENT Military is unfortunately not in a place where the biases against women and minorities have been mitigated to an acceptable level – hence our work to accelerate this process, as it is necessary for creating a fully integrated and intraspecies army. Democratization will slow this process. I am not necessarily opposed to exploring this concept in the future – but right now, this is weighed heavily against one of our major priorities.
I do not claim that officers are immune to their own biases and preferences – but we are trained to account for them, get second opinions, and carefully consider additional context beyond just qualifications. Soldiers do not, nor are expected to, take this nuance into account. Some will, but most will not.
To a lesser degree, I do not necessarily agree that this will strengthen inter-military cohesion. We want our soldiers to function well under any superior, regardless of how well or little they know them. Officers are supposed to retain a degree of impartiality about their soldiers - especially since they may have to send them to die.
This inherently strengthens a connection between officers and soldiers to a degree that is potentially problematic. Nor would it be capable of being done in a way that does not bring politicization into the military, no matter how many safeguards are in place to mitigate it. Now soldiers who wish to become officers will actively work to promote themselves to new potential voters, they may feel a desire to put themselves or the mission at risk to impress their peers and show they can lead.
There are more factors at play here that you cannot solve by simply banning campaigning. That is not how soldiers work. That is not how Humans work. If there is a ladder to climb, we will climb it, and look for whatever means are possible to do so. This is not to say that this does not happen - but I can state with confidence that this initiative would severely worsen it far more than what it could ever be now.
For these reasons, I will once again recommend against this initiative at this point in time.
- Commander Laura Christiaens
-x-
To: Laura Christiaens
From: Raul Soriano
CC: Kaiden Chapman
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Commander, I'm roping in Kaiden into this conversation, in case he has anything to add.
In short, those are valid concerns, ones that I did not fully consider within these proposals. I believe that I may have more faith in our soldiers in this instance than you do. I do not want to discount your own circumstances, especially given that you faced your own share of discrimination.
However, I do believe that things have changed from the old world. With ADVENT's focus on qualifications and emphasis on diversity throughout itself, I think this is starting to take a firmer hold in the minds of our citizens – of which those include soldiers. I will fully admit to not knowing this for sure, but I will point out neither do you.
I suppose I dislike that an argument against democratization boils down to people making the 'wrong' choice. This was admittedly a problem with the old form of democracy, but which has been rectified with the requirement of qualifications. I am more than willing to consider stronger qualifications – ones which do take ADVENT's diversity requirements into account, as well as means that further reduce the risk of low-ranking politicization, even if I know it runs the risk of appearing "rigged".
I firmly believe that this can be made to work, and now that you have articulated your concerns, I would rather we try and make this work than scrap what I firmly believe to be a positive realignment.
- Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director
-x-
To: Laura Christiaens, Raul Soriano
From: Kaiden Chapmen
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Commander, Chief, reviewed the above chain, and have some thoughts of my own.
I would prefer that Oversight not get involved in this, since it seems like both of you are aligned in many respects, but differ on the specifics of implementation.
Both of you make good and true points. Commander Christiaens is correct that soldiers are more likely to vote for leaders who are familiar to them, or otherwise reflect traits they view positively. This is simply unavoidable, and is something that has to be accepted as a part of our species. One day we may move past this, but I suspect we will not.
At the same time, Chief Soriano is right that this alone should not be the basis for a rejection. I fully agree with the ADVENT Military's efforts at diversification, but do not believe those should come at the expense of democracy – wherever it is found. Democratization has now had the flaws removed from it, and we should no longer have to worry about the people making the "Wrong" decision – not when all candidates will be qualified.
Yes, you are correct that this may hinder the diversification in certain positions, which is why I support Soriano's desire to reach a compromise, either through expanding requirements to improve diversification, as well as limiting what positions are open to election. I propose that all of our departments work together to establish a framework for military democratization, and prior to wide-scale implementation, run several 'trials' in various Legions, in different parts of the world.
Hard data is essential here. If your concerns are validated, Commander, then we will either have to rework or scrap the entire initiative. However, if the impact to ADVENT's diversification is minimal, then I believe that would be a strong argument to expand the program, and rework it as needed.
I am in full agreement with Chief Soriano that this should not be dismissed out of hand. We need to conduct tests and trials of this before reaching a conclusion. The success of workplace democracy is strong enough that, if there are serious proposals to implement it in a military environment, they should be strongly considered.
Please indicate your support, or lack thereof of this proposal.
- Kaiden Chapman, Chief Election Overseer
-x-
To: Kaiden Chapman, Raul Soriano
From: Laura Christiaens
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Raul, thank you for your input,
I'll indicate my support for the establishment of a working framework, as well as a limited number of trial elections in various Legions. I concur with the need to make a solid determination based on field results and hard data. I will support this endeavor, and indicate as such to the Chancellor.
Reach out for further coordination,
- Commander Laura Christiaens
-x-
To: Kaiden Chapman, Laura Christiaens
From: Raul Soriano
Subject: RE: Military Democratization Proposal
Commander, Chief Chapman,
Very glad to see your concurrence, and I will add my own to the idea. As this initiative is one which falls under my agency, I will begin the organization of this project, and will be reaching out for project managers, points of contact, and schedules to get this project moving. Thank you for your understanding and willingness to further improve ADVENT.
We will be in touch shortly.
- Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director
Bureau Proposal 018
Latest Revision: 03/25/2017
Designation: The Bureau of Labor and Organization
Program Type: Labor Management; Labor Oversight; Project Management
Authors: Raul Soriano, Chief Labor Director; Keith Watkins, Chief Overseer of the Oversight Division; Ian Powell, Director of ADVENT Intelligence; Chancellor Saudia Vyandar; Kyong Suk-Chul, Minister of ADVENT Public Relations; Amalda Stein, Chief of Peacekeeper Operations; Commander Laura Christiaens; Kaiden Chapman, Chief Election Overseer
INITIAL PROPOSAL: When all is said and done, it is the people who work which allow everything to function. Without people to work, there would be no way modern society could function to the degree we have come to take for granted. Much work is done behind the scenes for the citizens to enjoy the goods, services, and options they have come to expect, and which are subsequently never seen.
Ostensibly, Labor departments have been employed by governments to set minimum standards for owners and corporations, and to ensure that workers can perform their vital services with the risk of injury and danger mitigated as much as possible. This scope is one that was limited to preventing outright abuses of labor, which has seen successes to various degrees, especially in Europe – but has seen only partial successes and effective purgatory, and descent into deregulation elsewhere.
This is not even taking into account nations which have little to no labor standards where workers are outright abused in manners that are little better than slavery. ADVENT faces a monumental challenge in that we have to incorporate nations with wildly different labor standards, workplace cultures, and societal views. We anticipate that there will be resistance to a new enforcement of standards, but that is ultimately not important.
There is no one above the law – and if the prisons must be filled with those who resist the loss of their cheap labor, then it will be done willingly.
I put forward, however, that the historic scope of labor departments managed by the nation-state has been far too limited in scope, and as a result, it has allowed for standards to regress without fights or limited the capability of intervention. Under the Bureau of Labor and Organization, this scope will be greatly expanded.
It is the responsibility of the state to be the primary advocate for the treatment of workers, and for too long this responsibility has been delegated to unions or worse, the corporations themselves, which should not be trusted to properly manage their employees. Enforcement of workplace standards has similarly been lax, with departments being legally tied or understaffed, or simply incompetent.
ADVENT must take a conscious and active role in the support of workers throughout the world, as if we do not, others will. Direct involvement has few if any downsides, as it allows us to set expectations and standards, guide workplace developments and organization, and supplement the role which has traditionally been held by private entities such as unions.
Additionally, it will be necessary to encourage the diversification of workplace organizations, and to diversify and devolve power which would otherwise be consolidated into non-state entities. By reducing the overall power of the private sector, and increasing our influence over the workers directly, we can ensure that the domination of private entities – be they corporations or unions – over political or government systems will never come to pass.
OBJECTIVES AND MISSION: The Bureau of Labor and Organization has a number of objectives which are listed below.
CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR STANDARDS: It is necessary to create a new series of labor standards that can be applied to the entirety of ADVENT, which are first and foremost centered around the health and safety of all employees and workers for all fields, industries, and sectors no matter how large or small.
This will obviously encompass ADVENT departments and organizations, and it is likely that standards will be made more stringent to set a higher standard for the private sector to follow. These standards will be made in coordination with experts and workers in the respective fields. We anticipate it will be months before a comprehensive set of standards is finalized, and will be using standards derived from several European nations known for strong regulations as a temporary measure. This will be enforced as strongly as the final iteration, and subject to modifications and improvements as suggested by experts and workers during its usage.
We will also be drafting standards for the ADVENT Military, which has historically not been subject to the same treatment, or at least under the same labor umbrella. However, soldiers are also employees of the state, and should also have representation and access to the protections afforded to everyone else, despite the unique nature of their work.
All of these standards will be strongly, firmly, and unapologetically enforced at regular intervals. Our Labor Officers will be empowered to act upon violations, and will be trained, equipped, and expected to thoroughly perform their jobs and execute judgement fairly.
ENGENDERING WORKER SUPPORT OF ADVENT: By directly advocating for the rights and standards of workers, we are almost certainly guaranteed to ensure their support for ADVENT for future generations, and ensure a grassroots support for ADVENT. This effect will be further compounded by the traditional state apathy or resistance to such, and such a reversal – while it will be viewed skeptically at first – will pay off in the future.
It is significantly more important to retain the support of the majority than those at the higher levels and classes. Workers are necessary for ADVENT to function, and if ADVENT makes tangible and significant efforts to ensure they are protected, represented, and supported, they will ensure ADVENT as a highly efficient state – and additionally be receptive to further messaging and support of measures, programs, and efforts that we want to promote outside of the labor market.
SUPPORT AND REGULATION OF UNIONS: In lieu of governments taking action to prevent worker abuse and exploitation, unions have taken up the role of the workers advocate and are a significantly important tool for us to work with and employ. While we cannot, and should not subsume the unions under ADVENT, we should make certain that, like every other private body, they are regulated.
This is a measure that must be done carefully, and we should make a direct effort to involve the unions in the crafting of union regulations. We should not curtail the influence or power the unions have without reason, but ensure that it is centered around the core ideal – which is that of a worker advocate.
Most regulations that would be developed should set several standards that all reasonable unions will agree to, such as worker input into leadership and major policy decisions, mechanisms to recall or remove unproductive or uncooperative workers, and salaries for executives which are not exorbitant.
All union dues will be abolished, as we will ensure that workers have a choice if they "officially" wish to join a union or not. In the past this was required due to the financial costs for running a union, which bred sentiment for anti-union and anti-worker 'right to work' laws which exploited this legitimate concern.
All unions will be directly subsidized by ADVENT, and ADVENT will provide payment for union leadership (in an opt-in program), and have funds available to sustain worker salaries in the event of strikes and protracted workplace negotiations, provided that such actions are legitimate.
By taking efforts to strengthen and empower unions to act in what is the best interests of the worker, while also ensuring that the few negative aspects are prevented or curtailed, we are almost certain to see a massive shift in the worker-employer relationship across the world.
NEGATION OF WORKER DISCONTENT: It is a simple, but often overlooked truth that if you provide for your citizens, you need not fear them. This is something ADVENT has done to great success domestically by providing universal social programs, which has curtailed opposition to what might otherwise be expected to be a contentious establishment and creation of a worldwide government.
At the end of the day though, people do not want to fight. They do not seek hardship. They will follow those who express vision and competence. This is not complicated. A happy society is one which will never challenge the state in a meaningful way. Rebellion and discontent comes from the failure of the state to care for its people.
This principle should also apply to the workers of ADVENT. Relying solely on social programs is a risky proposition, and while it will provide a solid cushion, efforts to bring the workers fully on the side of ADVENT will ensure the continuation of the state indefinitely, so long as the policies remain consistent.
For as mentioned before, if ADVENT has the support of the majority, there is nothing which will be able to bring it down.
ENCOURAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY: One thing which few would inherently recognize as an issue, but one which has likely led to the perpetuation of labor abuses and mistreatment is the homogenization of workplace management. Traditional businesses have a highly hierarchical structure with power consolidated in managers, owners, and overseers, with little power being delegated to workers themselves.
This is a valid form of business management which can be leveraged to great effect, but it is important to recognize the flaws inherent in such a system (and ensure that labor standards are designed to account for them), and that such a system is not the only means of workplace management.
A goal of the Bureau of Labor and Organization should be the encouragement of alternate forms of workplace management from worker cooperatives to expansions of workplace democratization, as well as other ones. We should encourage businesses and corporations to experiment, and with a gradual reduction of the profit motive and ADVENT subsidies, it is likely that owners and leaders may feel willing to break from this mold, leading to a more diverse labor force, and one where less power is concentrated in corporate organs, reducing non-state power and influence overall.
ORGANIZATION OF MAJOR LABOR PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS: ADVENT finds itself in the middle of a conflict, one which requires a massive utilization of labor to fortify cities, manage logistics, and prepare for the worst-case scenario. The Bureau of Labor and Organization would be responsible for recruiting, managing, and running large-scale projects which would be temporary in nature, but would be a stable job and source of income for many workers which may have yet to find permanent employment.
It would greatly speed up ADVENT's ability to prepare for invasions and attacks on major and minor cities, and greatly enhance the skills of the labor pool as these projects may require training and certification for specialized equipment, which would be provided by ADVENT, leading to a more skilled workforce.
Megaprojects proposed or undertaken by ADVENT would also fall under this umbrella, including ones such as Greenwall and the proposed New Siberian Plan, and would be longer-term and require more overall skilled workers. The success of these projects would greatly benefit ADVENT, and with proper organization, the sooner they will be completed.
STANCE ON UNIONS AND UNIONIZATION: ADVENT will take a directly pro-union stance as it is necessary to achieve the listed objectives above. ADVENT will work to, if not directly promote unionization, ensure that every worker knows that it is an option, and one which will be supported directly by ADVENT.
By working to so openly promote, support, and protect unions we will be able to set standards, regulations, and systems which ensure that the core goal of the union is met, while curtailing corruption, inefficacy, and other negative aspects that have sometimes arisen in unions. At the same time, we will also respect the workers who have no interest in joining or creating a union – they will still be entitled to the same labor protections as every other worker.
However, by depoliticizing and directly supporting the monetary aspects of unions, we may hopefully play a role in breaking the stereotype of greedy unions that take money from the workers, and showcase that those who are running it do care and are effective advocates. Additionally, greater control and leverage over unions will allow us to act against individuals which do not meet this standard, or seek to use the influence of unions for activities or goals outside the stated purpose of the union.
We expect this to receive some degree of political pushback from nations with historically poor labor conditions, and within cultures that express anti-union sentiments. This will need to be addressed through public messaging campaigns, active anti-disinformation operations conducted with PATRIOT and ADVENT Intelligence, with active suppression of anti-union voices and promotion of union workers, leaders, and organizations, preferably with explicit ADVENT endorsement.
There is a role we have to play in union normalization worldwide, and we will use every single tool and weapon in our arsenal to ensure that there is no opposition left standing – rhetorically, of course.
INTERNAL DIVISIONS: The Bureau of Labor and Organization has a wide mission scope, and as such it is expected to be one of the largest in ADVENT, with the potential to grow further as the labor market continues to evolve and expand.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR STANDARDS: This department will be responsible for researching, coordinating, and setting labor standards for every industry, field, and job throughout the entirety of ADVENT. They will be composed of industry experts, workers, owners, and all other representative stakeholders to ensure a consensus across the upcoming ADVENT labor code.
They will also be responsible for making any future changes, revisions, and additions to the labor code depending on future developments. The department will make an active effort to follow new technological developments which can affect the most efficient and effective labor standards and avoid becoming outdated.
LABOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICE: The establishment of standards is a critical mission of the Bureau of Labor and Oversight, but it means very little if the standards are not enforced, and enforced totally and aggressively. As a baseline we are setting our standards to be above the bare minimum, and will make a point to expect higher from the workplaces.
The chief enforcers of this will come from the Labor Enforcement Office, which will manage our Labor Inspectors which will be responsible for conducting all public and private inspections of facilities, workplaces, and other places of employment. Inspections will be conducted more thoroughly than what may be traditionally expected.
Inspections will have three primary parts. The first will be a complete tour of the facility in question, to inspect workplace conditions, equipment, and other areas. Labor Inspectors have access to every single part of the facility, and cannot be denied entry. Those who interfere may be arrested and prosecuted, as Labor Inspectors are empowered to perform temporary arrests prior to handing them off to Peacekeeper officers.
The second part will be interviews of workers to either support or refute what was observed in the initial site inspection. This will allow the inspector to gain a more holistic understanding of the workplace environment. The number of employees to be interviewed will be dependent on the inspector, the size of the workforce employed, and the various roles employed, however it must include interviews of both high-ranking and low-ranking employees.
The final part will be a review with the owner or administrator of the site, going over the findings, and either passing or failing the facility. Failing will result in penalties which can range from fines to arrests depending on the degree of failure. Sites may also be forced to shut down temporarily to bring standards up, or remove, demote, or reassign individuals which have been deemed to be problematic.
We intend for the Labor Inspectors to be taken seriously, if not feared by the owners. It will be sufficient motivation to ensure labor standards are being consistently met – though it is recommended that we also ensure there are rewards for those who pass or exceed expectations to prevent a fully fear-based relationship, useful as it will be.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR COMPLAINTS: ADVENT cannot solely rely on the work of our inspectors to immediately address or note every problem and concern. Inspections are a scheduled affair (even if unknown to the owners), and at best on a quarterly basis for most institutions.
There is a significant amount which can happen in this time, and this department will handle all labor complaints submitted to the Bureau, and dispatch officers to investigate and confirm the claims. This department will be empowered to prioritize or dismiss concerns depending on context and evidence.
To prevent overloading and abuse of this program, complaints will be treated with the same standard applied to false Peacekeeper and Oversight Division reports, where there are criminal penalties for those who intentionally submit misleading or false complaints. Submitters will also be required to submit follow-ups if the issue is resolved prior to a Labor Inspector arriving to validate the complaint to prevent a waste of resources, which will be limited, especially at the start.
DEPARTMENT OF UNION SUPPORT: In the event that Unions require support, be it financial access due to strikes, independent negotiators between themselves and owners, or institutional knowledge for those starting a new union, this department will be the ones that work to assist them.
This department will maintain lists of active unions and respective points of contact, along with any other relevant information. They directly manage union funds and salaries, and are responsible for ensuring that funds are available should the criteria be met, and that the union leadership is being paid provided they are doing the work expected of them.
Beyond the direct support to unions, they will act as a body that works to publicly advocate for workers and benefits of unionization, and work to counter disinformation and mark disruptive anti-union elements for suppression and negation should it be necessary.
DEPARTMENT OF UNION STANDARDS AND OVERSIGHT: While ADVENT will take a clear pro-union stance, that does not mean we will not have our own standards and expectations to ensure the unions are not abusing the significant amount of trust and support we are putting into them.
This is what this department handles – the establishment of union standards, of which will be decided with teams of union leaders, workers, business owners, and ADVENT officials who will come together to reach a set of union standards which are fair and reasonable for all parties. These standards will be crucial in determining when and where ADVENT will actively support unions in the case of strikes and other labor disputes.
This will also serve as the primary regulating body of unions themselves, and any accusations or suspicions of corruption, outside advocation, or other non-union activities will be investigated by this body. Unions which are found to be in violation of standards will need to immediately course-correct or restructure or risk being dismantled with a replacement union created as a result, with direct ADVENT support and oversight.
ADVENT intends for standards to be provided fairly across the private sector, and the unions are not exempt from this.
DEPARTMENT OF ADVENT LABOR PROJECTS: Due to the rapid technological development spearheaded by ADVENT as well as the ongoing war, there are a significant number of projects both major and minor which require a massive and active labor force. These temporary projects require significant recruitment, coordination, and management to be achieved successfully.
This department will be responsible for proposing, planning, and implementing these labor projects as well as determining the resources such projects would cost. They will work with all ADVENT entities to prepare and implement projects in a manner that is significantly more streamlined and organized than the current methods.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL LABOR: While most of the Bureau of Labor and Organization is centralized around the private sector and unions related to that, ADVENT also maintains their own workforce which should be managed directly, which has different mechanics due to its nature as a public entity.
This department will be responsible for managing and handling any labor issues or concerns that appear within ADVENT, as well as implementing any changing workplace proposals, and handling suggestions for improvement. The department will take a consensus-based approach towards handling disputes, and limit overtly punitive or decisive action against disruptive elements to prevent potential cascading effects that may damage the efficiency and effectiveness of ADVENT.
DEPARTMENT OF DEMOCRATIZATION AND ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATION: This will be a small and experimental department, which is responsible for researching, conceptualizing, and promoting other forms of alternative organization outside the traditional hierarchical format. While we do not know what results will come from these, if any at all, we want to make a point to continually push the boundaries and find new ways of workplace organization in and outside of ADVENT, especially since it may lead to further effectiveness and efficiency within ADVENT.
This department will be composed of a small number of all stakeholders, and will work directly with businesses large and small who are willing to take part in trials and experiments to test new workplace organization. These businesses will be compensated for their time and any loss in output or efficiency.
Verified or approved alternative organizational methods, such as workplace democratization (full or limited) will be actively promoted by the department as a verified and viable method for businesses to use or adapt for their own purposes, with owners and workers encouraged to submit detailed feedback and testimonials for ADVENT to use for further promotion.
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY LABOR AFFAIRS: While they are not part of what is understood as a traditional workforce, military personnel are employees of the state, and thus should be treated as such. While this is not a veteran's affairs office, it is one that nonetheless deals with the well-being of a soldier.
While there is an argument that the life of a soldier is inherently dangerous and cannot be held to traditional workplace safety standards, this is not exactly the case, as there are many jobs which pose a danger to the workers already. Additionally, labor standards are ultimately about the mitigation of risk – not the elimination of it. There will always be significant risks in the life of a soldier, what matters – and what this department will ensure – is that ADVENT is making every effort to take care of the physical and mental well-being of our soldiers.
This will focus on ensuring that soldiers are properly supplied, trained, and supported. It will be important to curtail the less desirable traits of some officers which have damaged efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces. While this will likely be a department which will take some time to determine the nuances of the armed forces, it will be done in conjunction with the ADVENT Military including high-ranking and rank and file soldiers, with additional input from the Oversight Division.
RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING: The Bureau of Labor and Organization will draw its core workforce from the general workforce, with perhaps an emphasis on those who may not have higher education depending on the needs of the Bureau. For the most part, most positions and roles within the Bureau should not require higher degrees, but instead training which will be provided to all employees.
In particular there will be a drive to recruit members who are, or were once part of unions or union leadership as that is a core part of our mission, and those who have prior experience will be valuable in ensuring a smooth operation, so long as they are fully devoted to the mission and goals of ADVENT.
Labor Inspectors should have targeted recruitment towards former or current law enforcement, corporate whistleblowers, inspectors, private investigators, and other forensic fields. Due to the personal component of the job, it is also worth considering non-investigative backgrounds such as public relations, psychology, and interrogators for roles. This should be one of the specialized roles in the Bureau, and one to which there is a higher standard due to the importance of the position.
AUTHORITY AND LIMITATIONS: It is expected that the employees of the Bureau of Labor and Organization would have a notable amount of authority, depending on their role and position within the Bureau. Labor Inspectors will have extensive powers to enforce labor standards, including temporary arrest powers and the authority to shut down worksites.
All oversight and standard-setting departments will have full authority over their respective areas, though are expected to take outside input into consideration. It is recommended that for unknown or contentious decisions, it is recommended that outside input, such as the Oversight Division, be consulted to prevent legal issues.
There will be no department or individual within the Bureau of Labor and Organization which will have standing authority on non-labor or organizational matters.
CONCLUSION: The scope and scale of what we are aiming for in the Bureau of Labor and Organization is one which I believe has not been done before. It is a plan which we anticipate will be contentious and not without its share of issues and growing pains. Yet it will result, should it succeed, in a society which is efficient, safe, and prosperous for all who live within it.
ADVENT is the pursuit of an ideal, to reach the best our species can achieve. While there will be those who argue that we are overstepping our bounds and taking sides, stagnation and the simple enforcement of the status quo – regardless of how good or bad it is – will ensure that nothing will fundamentally change in the long term.
ADVENT is a cumulative effort, the result of continual experimentation, refinement, and collaboration with parties, agencies, and elements throughout the world. To build a global society and system, it must be done from the ground up if it hopes to endure in the long-term. This bureau will go a long way to ensuring that ADVENT is successful and sustainable.
It has been said that ADVENT is incapable of change and resistant to ideas outside their established orthodoxy. This is not something I believe to be true, as I have always understood that ADVENT will be open to changes and refinement – so long as the idea is good and can be properly argued.
Will this Bureau be as I envision it? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but one thing we expect is for it to be carefully and seriously considered. If the greater mission of each employee is to work to make ADVENT ever so slightly better, then I can say for certain that no matter what ideas are ultimately accepted, each one will achieve this, and that is in and of itself, a victory.