[PASSED] Ban Profits on Workers’ Deaths

[Bears Armed]

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

"Ahem!"


Hr’rmm, wouldn’t any company that’s deliberately taking out “dead peasant” policies so that (as this proposal’s supporters seem concerned their motives might be) it doesn’t have to worry about taking care of its workforce probably be in breach of existing GA legislation on safety at work – and at risk of falling under the scope of resolution #118 ‘Ethics in International Trade’ too — anyhows?

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.

Or to require that a potential hire accept the insurance premiums that the company would be paying for the potential benefit of that employee’s dependents as a part of their agreed salary…

[Ossitania]

I'm changing my vote to AGAINST as I don't believe it's fair to single out corporations, I don't think the 50% clause is justified and I'd rather see a resolution prohibiting all insurance policies on the property of others (including their lives) without consent of the owner.

[United Federation of Canada]

Corporations are bad enough. They do not need to seek profit via the death of their workers as well.

We have since made corporations illegal in The United Federation of Canada, for one of these very reasons, and applaud this resolution for protecting the rights of workers, and not allowing evil corporations to profit needlessly from the deaths of their workers.

The United Federation of Canada votes in FAVOR of this resolution.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

As we don't have peasants, dead or otherwise - I have voted against this proposal.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

*snip*

I can admit when I'm wrong. According to the case you cite, out of an alleged 350,000 policies between 1994 and 2000 (covering hourly employees and store management), Walmart collected on just 380 policies. For an hourly worker, Walmart collected between $65k to $80k. I don't know the inner workings of Walmart financing, but those sums don't seem exorbitant. In any event, we can't know for sure whether Walmart "profited" on these policies, since we don't know how much it actually costs for them to lose a worker. The policies also covered salaried management (hardly "peasants"), and those policies, understandably, paid more.

As I mentioned earlier, keeping these policies secret does seem unethical; if making these policies public and requiring consent was all the Act did I might support it. But it goes way beyond that and throws the baby out with the bathwater. There's no reason that companies should be forced to give over the insurance benefits they buy to third parties, at the expense of worker wages and consumer prices. There's no reason to tie a company's hands and tell them that they must keep an employee who won't let the company insure against their loss. Those steps turn this Act from a beneficial measure to promote transparency into a detrimental measure that stymies 99 good practices for every 1 bad practice.

[T]he 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.

I don't really think that's the issue. If it were the issue, you'd think the authors would have outlawed the practice of insuring employees entirely, rather than permit it with employee consent and a share of the proceeds. After all, if a company has an incentive to kill you for the insurance money, that incentive doesn't go away simply because you consent to be insured and your little dog gets some of the benefits.

I should think it goes without saying that taking out a life insurance policy and then killing the insured person in order to collect would be homicide (also insurance fraud) - something that nations probably already prohibit and that this bill doesn't actually mention.

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.

Or to require that a potential hire accept the insurance premiums that the company would be paying for the potential benefit of that employee’s dependents as a part of their agreed salary…

Also a good loophole.

[Khislav]

Khislav cannot stand behind a resolution that has so little basis in reality or merit. We remain confident this is not a common form of fraud. We also feel that policing corporations which operate within our nation's borders is our own responsibility. Enforcing this resolution would be next to fiscally impossible, anyway.

[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.

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.

It's interesting you presume me so naive. Of course insurance exists to compensate a loss. But, as I'm sure you are aware, even the best of intentions can be abused. Intent can be taken advantage of. This resolution aims to prevent people from taking advantage of insurance to turn a profit. An employer insuring a valuable employee, maybe. I could possibly see that. An employer insuring a minimum wage worker who is easily replaceable, just to turn a profit on the person's death? Especially if the job is stressful, or if the worker has poor health benefits, it will easily turn a profit for the company. Seeing the point now?

[Knootoss]

It's interesting you presume me so naive. Of course insurance exists to compensate a loss. But, as I'm sure you are aware, even the best of intentions can be abused. Intent can be taken advantage of. This resolution aims to prevent people from taking advantage of insurance to turn a profit. An employer insuring a valuable employee, maybe. I could possibly see that. An employer insuring a minimum wage worker who is easily replaceable, just to turn a profit on the person's death? Especially if the job is stressful, or if the worker has poor health benefits, it will easily turn a profit for the company. Seeing the point now?

And you think the insurance company does not see this exact thing, and would demand a higher premium for sickly employees who are being worked to death in the salt mines? If a fascist concentration camp director came to me (as a hypothetical insurance agent) and asked for CEO-level insurance on his camp workers, I'd tell him to get lost.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Quadrimmina]

It's interesting you presume me so naive. Of course insurance exists to compensate a loss. But, as I'm sure you are aware, even the best of intentions can be abused. Intent can be taken advantage of. This resolution aims to prevent people from taking advantage of insurance to turn a profit. An employer insuring a valuable employee, maybe. I could possibly see that. An employer insuring a minimum wage worker who is easily replaceable, just to turn a profit on the person's death? Especially if the job is stressful, or if the worker has poor health benefits, it will easily turn a profit for the company. Seeing the point now?

And you think the insurance company does not see this exact thing, and would demand a higher premium for sickly employees who are being worked to death in the salt mines? If a fascist concentration camp director came to me (as a hypothetical insurance agent) and asked for CEO-level insurance on his camp workers, I'd tell him to get lost.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Irrespective of that, it happens. If it doesn't, and insurance companies don't allow such a thing, then why be against the law?

[The Two Jerseys]

It's interesting you presume me so naive. Of course insurance exists to compensate a loss. But, as I'm sure you are aware, even the best of intentions can be abused. Intent can be taken advantage of. This resolution aims to prevent people from taking advantage of insurance to turn a profit. An employer insuring a valuable employee, maybe. I could possibly see that. An employer insuring a minimum wage worker who is easily replaceable, just to turn a profit on the person's death? Especially if the job is stressful, or if the worker has poor health benefits, it will easily turn a profit for the company. Seeing the point now?

And you think the insurance company does not see this exact thing, and would demand a higher premium for sickly employees who are being worked to death in the salt mines? If a fascist concentration camp director came to me (as a hypothetical insurance agent) and asked for CEO-level insurance on his camp workers, I'd tell him to get lost.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

I can't help but wondering how many people in favor of this resolution know how insurance works. If a company takes out a huge policy on an unskilled laborer, that's going to send up a red flag right there. Heaven help them if they try to collect on that policy, because the insurer will probably automatically suspect fraud, deny the claim, and report them to the authorities, especially if their investigation shows that the company neglected the worker's welfare.

More importantly, how is prevention of insurance fraud even within the World Assembly's authority?

[Rickgrad]

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.

Yes watching a video about capitalism by Karl Marx won't give you a slanted view.

[Tiquipaya]

Despite the alarmist rhetoric from some here, we find this to be a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation, and give it our full support.

Katari Ch'ullqimamani, WA Ambassador

[Diogris]

Diogris corporations are very upset at this proposal and disgusted with the WA for going along with it. This proposal oversteps the bounds of the WA.


Diogris will be considering leaving the WA. If all the WA is going to do is hurt my economy and meddle in affairs that REALLY should be a matter of the state, I will not be a part of it.

[Three Lands]

This resolution is laudable and common-sense inasmuch as while the peasants are indeed subject to their rulers in all ways, the rights of those rulers to dispose of the masses as they see fit does not extend to private corporations. The practice of obtaining insurance policies on peasant employees without their consent for corporate benefit is a clear preemption of the holy rights of the government.

[Shabazz_Aladeens]

The People's Republic of Shabazz_Aladeens is very appalled by the WA's effort at meddling with its policies and stemming its economy.
The People's Republic of Shabazz_Aladeens is very concerned for its corporations and believes that they will be losing the ability to maximize their profits, resulting in a lower tax income for its government.
The People's Republic of Shabazz_Aladeens stands to oppose this resolution with an adamant will, and hopes that its peers will respond in kind.

[Vincetinople]

This oppressive World Assembly is not a place for a Liberty-esteeming nation. All non collectivist states should boycott.

[Hayck]

How do i vote

[Vagabundas]

As Vagabundas has already shown it support many months ago, now we can finally vote FOR it in the World Assembly.

Glad you came back Sionis Prioriatus!

Yours faithfully,

[Retired WerePenguins]

OOC: ...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.

OOC: While I realize that this is a game of fantasy, I see no reason why a pompous work of falsehood and fiction designed to rob the masses of their money and whatever intelligence they still have left should be the basis for any WA resolution. Leave Moore's garbage to the daily issues. I can always IGNORE those.

[Seriong]

I employ my children, and buy a life insurance policy on them. There should be a clause against that.

[Oscilloscope]

A company should be able to take out life insurance policies on their employees as long as the cause of death is not related to their work. Whenever an employee dies, it generally hurts the company. Moral issues would only arise if companies start using these policies to off their employees on purpose but I don't see any proof of that.

[Polvia]

This is a bill to further reduce the exploitation of the workers by their corporate masters. As a firm believer in worker's rights, and the constant improvement of the working conditions of the workers, the Senate of the Kingdom of Polvia has voted in SUPPORT of this legislation.

[Tropico IV]

An excellent proposal designed to prevent the exploitation of workers.
We, the people of The Democratic People's republic of Tropico IV have voted in favour of this proposal.

[Sardakhar]

How do i vote

Click on "World Assembly" (usually it is to the left of your screen). Then click on the proposal currently at vote. Go to the bottom of the page and there should be two buttons, one being to vote for and the other to vote against.

--------------------

Sardakhar officially confirms that, through its WA-voting satellite state East Sardakhar, it has voted FOR this great proposal. We know that it will pass. Godspeed!

Jali Mortey
Sardakhar Minister of Foreign Affairs

[United Federation of Canada]

How do i vote

Join the World Assembly first, then you can vote.