[PASSED] Ban Profits on Workers’ Deaths

[Christian Democrats]

I really do not see how this is an issue of international law, this resolution seeks to adjust domestic law. If another country wants to allow corporations to abuse their workers, it's really no concern of mine.

In this day and age, many corporations operate internationally. Doesn't the World Assembly have a duty to regulate international commerce?

Employers should not require consent of an employee to take insurance against losing valuable assets...

I would like to think that humans matter a bit more than material assets, Ambassador.

[The Two Jerseys]

I really do not see how this is an issue of international law, this resolution seeks to adjust domestic law. If another country wants to allow corporations to abuse their workers, it's really no concern of mine.

In this day and age, many corporations operate internationally. Doesn't the World Assembly have a duty to regulate international commerce?

Except this isn't international commerce. Shipping goods between countries is international commerce. Telling XYZ Corporation how they have to treat their workers in Dumbfuckistan isn't an international issue, it's an issue for Dumbfuckistan's government.

[Knootoss]

OOC: Considering that SP ignored my reminding him that HE HIMSELF thought this was a bad policy idea when he abandoned it last year, I'll have to look up his own words from the logs and use that for a repeal effort. Sad.

[Christian Democrats]

In this day and age, many corporations operate internationally. Doesn't the World Assembly have a duty to regulate international commerce?

Except this isn't international commerce. Shipping goods between countries is international commerce. Telling XYZ Corporation how they have to treat their workers in Dumbfuckistan isn't an international issue, it's an issue for Dumbfuckistan's government.

The way that multinational corporations treat their workers is an international issue. By buying products from a foreign corporation, you are indirectly endorsing the way that company treats its workers. If the workers for a company that engages in international commerce are abused, then that abuse is an important concern of this international governing body.

The manufacture of products that are shipped internationally is an international concern. If the products are being made by abused workers, then the World Assembly has a duty to step in to stop that abuse. Certainly, taking out insurance policies on people without their consent as if they were property is an abusive corporate practice, a practice that this Assembly should stop.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I am not convinced that the problem this proposal seeks to address is really a problem. My lawyer, for instance, is so valuable to his law firm that were he to die the firm would experience a dramatic loss in revenue and an immediate hit to the value of its services. It makes sense for the firm to maintain insurance, solely for the firms' benefit, in the event of my lawyer's death. That way, if my lawyer were to suddenly die of a heart attack, the firm would not immediately lay-off half the staff - the loss in revenue would be made up by the insurance payout.

It also makes sense for the firm to refuse to employ my lawyer if he won't allow the company to obtain such insurance. It's a perfectly legitimate term of employment that an employee allow the company to insure against the loss of the employee's services.

There are other industries where this is true. Unless insurance money is available to soften the blow, a hospital might have to fire and entire wing of support staff if they lose a valued surgeon. Unless insurance money is available to soften the blow, a car dealership might have to close its doors upon the untimely loss of its best salesman.

If an employer wants to buy insurance on a valued employee so that the company does not go out-of-business in the event of that employees death, I don't see why this Assembly would want to stop that from happening. I recognize that by terming the practice a "dead peasant policy," the authors fabricated a rhetorical advantage that will probably secure the passage of the Act. That's unfortunate, because there are plenty of times when insuring a company from the catastrophic loss of a critical employee is not nearly so nefarious as the authors would have us believe.

[Knootoss]

For all who justly oppose:

QUICK!REPEAL posted: DRAFT: QUICK!Repeal: Ban Profits on Workers’ Deaths

[Ossitania]

*snip*

It seems you only read as far as the fabricated rhetorical advantage, since the very next clause allows the very insurance policies you wish to protect to continue as long as the employee agrees to it. And there's nothing prohibiting it being part of terms of employment, but no corporation can maltreat an employee who refuses to have insurance taken out on him after he's already started working there.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

Workers should not be forced to give up their liberties, such as knowing and deciding who will benefit from their deaths, just because they choose to work in a certain place of employment. My nation opposes infringements on the right to work.

[Knootoss]

*snip*

It seems you only read as far as the fabricated rhetorical advantage, since the very next clause allows the very insurance policies you wish to protect to continue as long as the employee agrees to it. And there's nothing prohibiting it being part of terms of employment, but no corporation can maltreat an employee who refuses to have insurance taken out on him after he's already started working there.

The Cowardly delegation is stating a very real, material advantage. Not a "fabricated rhetorical" advantage. First of all, this resolution mandates that half of the actual pay-out of said insurance is being given to a person who has not contributed one dime to it (the worker), and second of all, it does nothing to mitigate the risks associated with the deaths of workers who do not wish to be insured, for whatever deranged reason. Because of this resolution, a company that could not cope with the loss of its best lawyer/salesman/etc could not even fire such a person, to prevent the risk from occurring in the first place.

In summation, this anti-business resolution fails to even grasp the basic reasons of why people might take out the type of insurance that is so unfairly maligned here.

[Ossitania]

The Cowardly delegation is stating a very real, material advantage. Not a "fabricated rhetorical" advantage. First of all, this resolution mandates that half of the actual pay-out of said insurance is being given to a person who has not contributed one dime to it (the worker), and second of all, it does nothing to mitigate the risks associated with the deaths of workers who do not wish to be insured, for whatever deranged reason. Because of this resolution, a company that could not cope with the loss of its best lawyer/salesman/etc could not even fire such a person, to prevent the risk from occurring in the first place.

In summation, this anti-business resolution fails to even grasp the basic reasons of why people might take out the type of insurance that is so unfairly maligned here.

Hasn't contributed a dime to it? I find it difficult that anyone would wish to insure an employee that hasn't provided the very profits that the company is using to pay for the insurance policy, ambassador. Furthermore, have you considered that the guaranteed payout to other beneficiaries is a perfect incentive for the employee to consent to it. You used the word "deranged" very accurately, because the likelihood of any employee worth the businesses time insuring passing up on guaranteed life insurance policy is unlikely in the extreme. I'm also baffled by why a company that could not cope with the loss of its best X would want to fire X for not agreeing to a life insurance policy if it could not cope with the loss of X. Also, the words "fabricated" and "rhetorical" were those of the ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists, not mine, so tell him that its a real material advantage.

[Frisbeeteria]

I haven't been keeping up with the debate, but Dr. Koopman's objections are obvious and fair on the face of it. Corporate life insurance on key employees is there to protect the corporation's interest. It's quite possible that the same corporation might find it beneficial to fund a personal life insurance policy for the benefit of a key employee's survivors, but that's an entirely separate issue. Conflating the two isn't fair to the employer or the employee.

The overly emotional title of this resolution will probably ensure its passage. That's a pity. It's a poorly thought out law, and will probably deserve to be repealed.

[The Two Jerseys]

Except this isn't international commerce. Shipping goods between countries is international commerce. Telling XYZ Corporation how they have to treat their workers in Dumbfuckistan isn't an international issue, it's an issue for Dumbfuckistan's government.

The way that multinational corporations treat their workers is an international issue. By buying products from a foreign corporation, you are indirectly endorsing the way that company treats its workers. If the workers for a company that engages in international commerce are abused, then that abuse is an important concern of this international governing body.

The manufacture of products that are shipped internationally is an international concern. If the products are being made by abused workers, then the World Assembly has a duty to step in to stop that abuse. Certainly, taking out insurance policies on people without their consent as if they were property is an abusive corporate practice, a practice that this Assembly should stop.

If the goods shipped internationally are being manufactured by "mistreated" workers, then the World Assembly should seek to block nations from trading with the nation where the goods are manufactured. To attempt to force that nation to alter its corporate laws is a violation of national sovereignty. Furthermore, any attempt to directly regulate the actions of private industry grossly exceeds the World Assembly's authority.

[Sardakhar]

Having read this proposal over and over again, His Majesty Longinus I, Almighty God on Earth, Emperor of Sardakhar, King of East Sardakhar, has given his approval and directed the delegate of the World Assembly-voting Kingdom of East Sardakhar, which he rules in glorious personal union, to vote FOR this proposal. The corporations must start learning how to give more respect to their hard-working employees, to those who keep the corporations running, and not just grab all the opportunities that are there at all costs - even if it involves the death of the employees.

Jali Mortey
Sardakhar Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Retired WerePenguins]

In this day and age, many corporations operate internationally. Doesn't the World Assembly have a duty to regulate international commerce?

No, it has no duty whatsoever. Moreover it cannot do so.

International commerce, as it were, consists in all commerce between nations. According to the gnomes there are roughly 118,676 nations. Yet there are only 19,256 member nations. WA law is binding on member nations only (16% of all nations). Thus, at the very best, only a percentage of international commerce can be regulated. The more it is regulated the more advantage is given to the unregulated commerce. Now it is possible, via WA resolution to equally bind WA member states into an inferior commerce position compared with non WA nations. Some WA members actually get their kicks from such things, but that doesn't mean that they have regulated international commerce.

More over, this resolution has nothing to do with international commerce. This resolution simply forces all WA nations to adopt a stupid uniform position on an issue. An issue, I should add, that probably doesn't even exist in most of the WA nations to begin with.

So let's go over the title for a second, "Ban Profits on Workers’ Deaths"

You know, I've heard stories about "this resolution cures cancer," but I never thought I would actually see one. I trust you understand that if you ever could easily make profits from life insurance policies then life insurance companies would go out of business and as a result you would no longer be able to make profits from life insurance policies.

Most advanced workers require advanced training; this cost must be done up front and by the company. They fully expect the labor of the employee to give them a return on their investment. But if the employee dies, that investment is lost. Adding an additional cost of insurance in an attempt to recover losses should such a thing happen is an extremely logical thing to do. I don't see why this is an issue for us to debate and consider.

[Frenequesta]

You know, I've heard stories about "this resolution cures cancer," but I never thought I would actually see one. I trust you understand that if you ever could easily make profits from life insurance policies then life insurance companies would go out of business and as a result you would no longer be able to make profits from life insurance policies.

Most advanced workers require advanced training; this cost must be done up front and by the company. They fully expect the labor of the employee to give them a return on their investment. But if the employee dies, that investment is lost. Adding an additional cost of insurance in an attempt to recover losses should such a thing happen is an extremely logical thing to do. I don't see why this is an issue for us to debate and consider.

If anyone wants to demonstrate the RL existence of "dead peasant policies" I'd sure like to see one, as the respected delegate seems to imply that their existence is virtually impossible. Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact; that is, it can address a purely hypothetical concern and pass legislation in order to guard against occurrences in the future (in this case, prevent companies from even considering dead peasant policies in the future should circumstances that might cause companies to find a loophole in common-sense economics and thus actually implement them).

Furthermore, the delegate seems to have misunderstood the scope of the resolution. It merely orders employee consent for any life insurance policy the company wishes to apply to the said employee and opens avenues for remedies for those covered under dead peasant policies that actually exist.

I haven't been keeping up with the debate, but Dr. Koopman's objections are obvious and fair on the face of it. Corporate life insurance on key employees is there to protect the corporation's interest. It's quite possible that the same corporation might find it beneficial to fund a personal life insurance policy for the benefit of a key employee's survivors, but that's an entirely separate issue. Conflating the two isn't fair to the employer or the employee.

The overly emotional title of this resolution will probably ensure its passage. That's a pity. It's a poorly thought out law, and will probably deserve to be repealed.

May I ask what advantage a corporation gets from keeping the policy secret from the employee? That's the fundamental issue the resolution wishes to address. You may have a point that not all policies that would fall under this law are malicious, but is that a difference that matters in this law?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

It seems you only read as far as the fabricated rhetorical advantage, since the very next clause allows the very insurance policies you wish to protect to continue as long as the employee agrees to it. And there's nothing prohibiting it being part of terms of employment, but no corporation can maltreat an employee who refuses to have insurance taken out on him after he's already started working there.

Perhaps you're right... since this Act only prohibits adverse action against an employee, companies are still permitted to make consent to an insurance policy a condition of employment. All a company has to do to get around this law is to require a potential hire give (full, informed, yada yada yada) consent to naming the company as the sole beneficiary on a life insurance policy. That's a nice loophole you've found.

This proposal conflates a good business practice (insuring your most important assets) with some nefarious scheme to profit off workers deaths. An insurance payout is not profit: companies hope to never have to call that insurance in. If they do have to make a claim, it's not a net gain - the insurance exists to compensate for a loss, not provide a windfall.

I suppose the authors imagine a Board of Directors buying these policies and sitting around snickering that when one of their poor assembly line workers kick they bucket they'll have quite a grand party on the "profit" they'll make off the insurance company. But that's not how insurance works. The company pays a premium, every month, to ensure that in the event of an untimely death the company will not collapse. There's no PROFIT to be had on these policies, there is only a safety net designed to prevent a tragic death from sinking the company and imperiling all of the other workers' jobs.

<snip>

Workers should not be forced to give up their liberties, such as knowing and deciding who will benefit from their deaths, just because they choose to work in a certain place of employment. My nation opposes infringements on the right to work.

You've conflating "insurance benefits" with "benefit from their death." They're not the same concept. The company does not "benefit" from losing a valued employee. The insurance payout does not turn a profit. It gives the company compensation for the loss of the worker so they can hire someone else, train the person, and get on with business as usual. The insurance is so the business doesn't not have to shut down and lay everyone off when they tragically lose key personnel.

As ever, you are not protecting any rights. If a company wants to protect it's solvency by buying an insurance policy, the worker doesn't have some "liberty" to be free from that "infringement."

May I ask what advantage a corporation gets from keeping the policy secret from the employee? That's the fundamental issue the resolution wishes to address. You may have a point that not all policies that would fall under this law are malicious, but is that a difference that matters in this law?

I don't think the "secrect policy" part of the proposal is the problem. Frankly, I consider that a non-issue and if all this was about was forcing companies to tell employees that they were taking out the policy, I wouldn't be opposed.

The problem is that the Act prevents companies from being the sole beneficiaries of these plans (even though, presumably, only the company will pay for them). As a result, companies will either experience massive financial shortfalls (when they only get half the insurance they need to survive the untimely death of their employees), or it will force companies to buy more expensive policies and pass the cost on to the customer, or the worker (which may or may not be allowed under the "adverse action" language).

Also, if a worker doesn't want the company to take out a policy (maybe they don't want to share the cost, or maybe they have weird ideas about "liberty" and "infringement") then this Act prevents the company from insuring against the loss - very problematic when you think of what the loss of a doctor might do to a hospital, or the loss of a lawyer might do to a law firm.

[Andropoland]

AWARE that in countries that allow international corporations, most of the time these corporations act as a force for good, providing employment and economic strength to the communities in which they operate;

First line disregarded, I like the actual content of the resolution. I'd like it better if the first line said "AWARE that corporation are ebil forces for ebil that kill people and eat babies;", but I suppose this is good enough.

[Quadrimmina]

Irrespective of the intent of a life insurance policy on a worker, this resolution seeks to end a real injustice. Say, for instance, a minimum wage worker who gets health insurance through their employer takes this policy out. The employee has no incentive to provide quality insurance anymore. In fact, the employer wants the employee to die. Is that a world we want to live in? The only time an insurance policy should be taken out is with the consent of the employee. Otherwise, life insurance should only be taken out by those who will actually have qualms about somebody dying.

[Little Tralfamadore]

As stated there are reasons that a company would take life insurance on one of their key employees they same way they'll take out other insurance against a infinte number of possilities.

The idea that they will keep is secret is rather amusing. While not out of the question is is .00000000000000001% of the times that it isn't. The law is far overreaching.

[Rickgrad]

If a corporation wants to put a life insurance policy on its employees for its own reasons, and pays for it on its own, who are we to deny them that right? This regulation is nothing more then imposing arbitrary morals on the private industry. I am of the opinion that individual nation states should have the authority to pass or ignore this law at their own peril.

Social justice should never be used as an excuse to restrict and oppress others.
Vote NO on this Resolution

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Irrespective of the intent of a life insurance policy on a worker, this resolution seeks to end a real injustice. Say, for instance, a minimum wage worker who gets health insurance through their employer takes this policy out. The employee has no incentive to provide quality insurance anymore. In fact, the employer wants the employee to die. Is that a world we want to live in? The only time an insurance policy should be taken out is with the consent of the employee. Otherwise, life insurance should only be taken out by those who will actually have qualms about somebody dying.

The employer doesn't "want" the employee to die any more than a spouse, child, or parent who is the beneficiary of a life insurance policy wants the insured to die.

This is precisely the misconception this proposal feeds on. Insurance is there to protect the company from the loss of the worker, who (presumably) has some skill or talent that makes the company go. The employer doesn't want to lose their employee any more than a child wants to lose their parent: the insurance is there to help overcome the loss, not so that business executives can go on a nice vacation.

Folks seem to think that life insurance policies are like lottery tickets the always pay off. They're not. Insurance only works because the net amount spent on premiums is always greater than the net amount paid in benefits. In the majority of cases, employers buy the life policy without ever making a claim. Employers are not out insuring their low-skill workers and waiting for a big pay day, if only because the reality of insurance markets renders that strategy impossible. The only workers who would be insured are those who are so valuable that the company really could not survive their loss. In those cases, the company buys the insurance knowing that odds are they will never recoup the premiums.

Some in this Assembly have absolutely no understanding of how insurance works. The result? The "Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths" proposal - a proposal whose very name fails to recognize that insurance coverage exists to compensate a loss not turn a profit.

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: I do intend do reply to everyone. For the time being, I find it important to clarify one thing. Not that any opponent has ever bothered to ask - an understandable omission when it doesn't suit one's agenda - but I did not take the concept from my ass. It simply happened that one night - more than two years ago - I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story" in which it was very clearly shown that those kinds of immoral, abusive behaviors do occur, in a massive scale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frs25RsstoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cLrXYmUurE

Now, I know that this clarification is for naught. Some will not watch the linked videos nor get more information, others will vilify Mr. Moore, others will maintain it is a lie, and others will say yes it happens but "so what?" So obvious.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Employers are not out insuring their low-skill workers and waiting for a big pay day, if only because the reality of insurance markets renders that strategy impossible.

How does egg on the face feel, Ambassador?

Yours,

[Ossitania]

Without directly quoting the comments by the delegation from Cowardly Pacifists, I'd like to point out that, apart from my objections on the grounds that an individual has ownership over his own life and body and with this comes a right to decide the beneficiaries of his death, just like the owner of any property decides the beneficiaries of the destruction of that property (and it is only the individual who has that ownership, since we have laws against slavery), his objections seem to presume that these insurance policies will only be invoked in ordinary circumstances, when the very injustice it seeks to prevent is employers deliberately killing their employees for the insurance money, something they would surely be intelligent enough to do only if they had already prepared to cover the costs of the loss some other way, perhaps by lining up an equally-skilled replacement. His objection seems to be predicated on an assumption that all supporters of the legislation are completely against taking out insurance against the loss of your employees, when at least most of us are concerned primarily with the requirement for consent and taking efforts to mitigate the possibility of insurance fraud by killing off the employee. I'd like to point that I acknowledge that this possibility is only as likely as any other form of insurance fraud, such as the deliberate destruction of property, but that the "property" in this case is the life of another individual person who will be killed, whereas the deliberate destruction of one's own property to claim insurance doesn't necessarily infringe on the life and rights of others.

[Grantsburg]

Employers should not require consent of an employee to take insurance against losing valuable assets...

I would like to think that humans matter a bit more than material assets, Ambassador.

It depends on the human we are referring to...