[Draft] Repeal "Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths
Category: Repeal

---

Convinced that it is ideologically inconsistent for the World Assembly to uphold the tradition of free trade and free commerce whilst also intervening so heavily to proscribe an entire class of financial products,

Believing that it decreases the utility of the world if companies are unable to take insurance plans on important employees for their corporation such that mission critical staff can be replaced quickly,

Persuaded that solving the issue with profits on worker deaths is one that requires action on the domestic front to correct conflicts of interest when a worker lacks the information to adequately assess the safety of their workplace,

Confident that the interests of this legislation are possible to achieve without international action and instead with action by domestic parliaments themselves,

This august World Assembly hereby,

Repeals 233 GA "Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths".

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, you should know fully well by know, that National Sovereignty alone is not grounds for repeal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Ambassador, you should know fully well by know, that National Sovereignty alone is not grounds for repeal."

OOC: Then I need to summarise my argument much more clearly again.

Parsons: The argument, however it is, is that there exist companies who employ critical mission staff. That staff, if they were to suddenly die or leave the company, would impose a cost onto the company. In the event of that cost occurring, insurance would be taken out of avert that future cost. This would mean that companies are more able to deal with such problems more effectively.

However, this resolution prevents those legitimate concerns from being assuaged. Thus, in the interests of microeconomic stability, we believe it is better to have this repealed.

[Tinfect]

Parsons: The argument, however it is, is that there exist companies who employ critical mission staff. That staff, if they were to suddenly die or leave the company, would impose a cost onto the company. In the event of that cost occurring, insurance would be taken out of avert that future cost. This would mean that companies are more able to deal with such problems more effectively.

However, this resolution prevents those legitimate concerns from being assuaged. Thus, in the interests of microeconomic stability, we believe it is better to have this repealed.

"Ambassador, might I suggest further reading of the Target Resolution? Specifically the following section:"

2) The employee’s free, fully informed, uncoerced consent shall be required for the validity of any life-insurance wherein her/his employer is a beneficiary. Other beneficiaries of the employee’s own free choosing shall receive at least half the benefits of any life-insurance policy, present or former, in which the employer is or was a beneficiary.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: The argument, however it is, is that there exist companies who employ critical mission staff. That staff, if they were to suddenly die or leave the company, would impose a cost onto the company. In the event of that cost occurring, insurance would be taken out of avert that future cost. This would mean that companies are more able to deal with such problems more effectively.

However, this resolution prevents those legitimate concerns from being assuaged. Thus, in the interests of microeconomic stability, we believe it is better to have this repealed.

"Ambassador, might I suggest further reading of the Target Resolution? Specifically the following section:"

2) The employee’s free, fully informed, uncoerced consent shall be required for the validity of any life-insurance wherein her/his employer is a beneficiary. Other beneficiaries of the employee’s own free choosing shall receive at least half the benefits of any life-insurance policy, present or former, in which the employer is or was a beneficiary.

Parsons: Which then imposes a massive cost to such practices such that they are de facto impossible. The use of such life insurances is thus actively disincentivised. Even if a company were so rich to take such a stupid economic move, it is not guaranteed that an employee would assent to this. The main issue with these problems and employer beneficiary life insurance policies is the conflict of interest it makes with employee safety and the employer (though insurance companies should catch on to this and therefore raise premiums, however it is, ban that conflict of interest, not the legitimate financial instrument through which it operates).

[Tinfect]

Parsons: Which then imposes a massive cost to such practices such that they are de facto impossible.

"That is entirely untrue. There is no extreme cost to it, the terms are quite reasonable, they are by no means so expensive so as to be impossible."

The use of such life insurances is thus actively disincentivised.

"The Imperium sees no problem with this. If an employer wishes to take an insurance policy out on an employee, the terms are quite reasonable. If they find them unacceptable, clearly that employee is not worth a sufficient amount to the company to warrant such a policy."

Even if a company were so rich to take such a stupid economic move, it is not guaranteed that an employee would assent to this.

"Again, the Imperium sees no problem with this. Any contract by which another party is involved should require the consent of said party."

The main issue with these problems and employer beneficiary life insurance policies is the conflict of interest it makes with employee safety and the employer (though insurance companies should catch on to this and therefore raise premiums, however it is, ban that conflict of interest, not the legitimate financial instrument through which it operates).

"I fail to see how this resolution creates a conflict of interest. In the opinion of the Imperium, taking out a 'life-insurance' policy on a 'valued' employee is a conflict of interests. The interests being, keeping said employee alive, and receiving a payment on their death."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: Which then imposes a massive cost to such practices such that they are de facto impossible.

"That is entirely untrue. There is no extreme cost to it, the terms are quite reasonable, they are by no means so expensive so as to be impossible."

The use of such life insurances is thus actively disincentivised.

"The Imperium sees no problem with this. If an employer wishes to take an insurance policy out on an employee, the terms are quite reasonable. If they find them unacceptable, clearly that employee is not worth a sufficient amount to the company to warrant such a policy."

Even if a company were so rich to take such a stupid economic move, it is not guaranteed that an employee would assent to this.

"Again, the Imperium sees no problem with this. Any contract by which another party is involved should require the consent of said party."

The main issue with these problems and employer beneficiary life insurance policies is the conflict of interest it makes with employee safety and the employer (though insurance companies should catch on to this and therefore raise premiums, however it is, ban that conflict of interest, not the legitimate financial instrument through which it operates).

"I fail to see how this resolution creates a conflict of interest. In the opinion of the Imperium, taking out a 'life-insurance' policy on a 'valued' employee is a conflict of interests. The interests being, keeping said employee alive, and receiving a payment on their death."

Now, this isn't about the resolution. This is about the topic which the resolution purports to solve effectively.

[Tinfect]

Now, this isn't about the resolution. This is about the topic which the resolution purports to solve effectively.

"Which the Resolution does quite effectively."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Now, this isn't about the resolution. This is about the topic which the resolution purports to solve effectively.

"Which the Resolution does quite effectively."

Parsons: I've always felt that, to borrow a phrase, if you want to kill a cancer, you should generally try not to also kill the patient. Sure, when you kill the patient, the cancer dies too, but doing so ignores a certain aspect...

[Tinfect]

I've always felt that, to borrow a phrase, if you want to kill a cancer, you should generally try not to also kill the patient. Sure, when you kill the patient, the cancer dies too, but doing so ignores a certain aspect...

"Your analogy fails entirely, and is largely incomprehensible. The sole effect of this legislation is that a Company cannot form a contract with another party, that involves a third party, without the consent of said third party. "

[Normlpeople]

"This is another one which the text could be the WAHQ directory and I'd vote for it. Unfortunately, given its title, you may have some issue with the lemmings." Clover said.

"I understand its intent, disgusting an accusation that it is. I even agree with obtaining consent, a company can merely make it part of the employment agreement.

However, I do not see why a company seeking to protect its investments in an individual should be forced to pay higher premiums, and obtain a higher payout, so that they may do so, as the current resolution effectively requires. I also have issue with a third party sharing such payout despite the company paying the premiums involved, and the individual paying nothing.

Good luck Ambassador Parsons! You have my support"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I've always felt that, to borrow a phrase, if you want to kill a cancer, you should generally try not to also kill the patient. Sure, when you kill the patient, the cancer dies too, but doing so ignores a certain aspect...

"Your analogy fails entirely, and is largely incomprehensible. The sole effect of this legislation is that a Company cannot form a contract with another party, that involves a third party, without the consent of said third party. "

OOC: The work of Williamson, on the boundaries of the firm, clearly puts an employee inside the party of the employer.

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan offers its full support. The target resolution is an abomination. How such a restriction on business passed we will never know.

"We would recommend a clause specifically calling out the daftness of half of the proceeds of any policy being paid to someone other than the business paying the premiums.

"Your analogy fails entirely, and is largely incomprehensible. The sole effect of this legislation is that a Company cannot form a contract with another party, that involves a third party, without the consent of said third party. "

"This is incorrect. That is one effect. It is not the sole effect. The other extremely prohibitive and costly effect is that half of the policy payout is paid to a person or persons who had no hand or act in the paying of the premiums."

- Ted Hornwood.

OOC: This was passed before I took an interest in the WA and I don't understand why there wasn't legality challenge based on the title alone. It bears insufficient relation to the content.

[Ossitania]

The idea this is anti-free trade is ludicrous. Any company so overly dependent on key persons for profit while also not generating enough profit they can afford this kind of insurance should be smushed by the invisible hand of the market when their inadequacy and unsustainability comes home to roost, not allowed to prop themselves up artificially at the expense of their employees' families. That's what real belief in free trade sounds like. A company that can't afford to conform to basic ethical practices is a failing business as much as one that can't afford to comply with basic safety and environmental regulations.

Beyond that, there's literally nothing to suggest the practice is unreasonably hindered by the target resolution, given it doesn't prevent acceding to corporate-owned life insurance as a condition of employment, so presumably any company can simply do so.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Beyond that, there's literally nothing to suggest the practice is unreasonably hindered by the target resolution, given it doesn't prevent acceding to corporate-owned life insurance as a condition of employment, so presumably any company can simply do so.

OOC: Certainly it does, "free, fully informed, uncoerced consent" means it would have to not be coerced, coercion which is interpretable as employment conditional on acceptance.

[Ossitania]

Beyond that, there's literally nothing to suggest the practice is unreasonably hindered by the target resolution, given it doesn't prevent acceding to corporate-owned life insurance as a condition of employment, so presumably any company can simply do so.

OOC: Certainly it does, "free, fully informed, uncoerced consent" means it would have to not be coerced, coercion which is interpretable as employment conditional on acceptance.

OOC: I don't know why you've gone OOC, but sure, I knew someone would say this, because they said it when GA #233 was being drafted too.

First of all, the word "interpretable" merely means that if a member state deigns it so, consent to COLIs as a condition of employment can be deemed coercion. There is no scenario where that is not true. With this resolution in place, they can do so, without this resolution in place, they can do so, with a replacement resolution that merely requires consent but not the half-payout, they can do so.

The only scenario in which they can't do that is with a replacement resolution that explicitly carves out an exception, at which point corporations get carte blanche to actually be coercive, since they get to completely dictate the terms of the COLI, whereas with GA #233 in place, you have the much more likely scenario of consent to COLIs as a condition of employment not being considered coercive in general, while consent to COLIs with unreasonable or unethical provisos as a condition of employment is considered coercive, in the same way that offering poor people remuneration for labour is not generally considered coercive, but offering poor people remuneration for unreasonable or unethical labour is often considered coercive, and therefore proscribed, e.g. working with dangerous chemicals without safety gear is illegal, even if the worker consents.

Second of all, everything the target resolution forbids employers from doing, it forbids from doing to their employees. If they aren't yet employees, they can't do those things, and if they are their employee, they have presumably already consented to the COLI and the company has no incentive to do any of the prohibited actions in order to get their employees to agree, since they already have.

Third of all, let us consider the two scenarios for COLIs. Some companies take them out on all employees, in which case consent as condition of employment is very straightforward. Some companies only take them out on key persons within their organisation, in which case consent as a condition of employment is as simple as including consent to COLI at a future date, provided the employee is informed of the enactment of such a policy, as a part of the employment contract.

Fourth of all, it's not clear why any employee would ever not consent to COLIs as they're laid out in GA #233 anyway, since it basically means free life insurance.

Fifth of all, this is just a red herring argument anyway, since you probably wouldn't consider consent to a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of employment "coercive", or consent to any number of other things, like mandatory maintenance of fitness as an athlete, mandatory relocation as a member of the military or mandatory regular publication as an academic. All that "interpretable" really means in this context is that the nature of consent and coercion, particularly economic/financial coercion, is acknowledged as something with shades of grey between the black and white, and that member states are therefore given the latitude to decide where the line falls in these matters themselves, while those things that lie firmly in the black are prohibited definitively.

[Bananaistan]

"The problem we have with the target resolution is not so much its admirable aims regarding "dead peasant policies" as how it lumps key man insurance into its definition of dead peasant policies and then requires that the employer only receives half of the benefits of key man policies. Businesses have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves against costs and loss of revenues associated with the death or incapacity of key employees. It is unreasonable of the WA to stand in the way of businesses retaining the 100% of the "benefits" of such policies when they bear 100% of the cost. Particularly when such "benefits" merely recompense the business its costs associated with the death or incapacity of the key employee and profit doesn't come into it at all."

- Mrs Functionary Mary CP Doe.

[Wallenburg]

"This is--in a word--revolting. Employers do not own their employees. They have no justification in attempting to profit off of a worker's death."

[Bananaistan]

"This is--in a word--revolting. Employers do not own their employees. They have no justification in attempting to profit off of a worker's death."

"Which would be all well and good if that's what the target resolution dealt with, but unfortunately it goes far further and effectively prevents employers from insuring against the loss or injury of their most important asset, IE their human capital. This reaction seems typical of the WA: a bunch of cosseted and sheltered diplomats, politicians and civil servants running rough shod over a legitimate and ethical business practice, which serves a greater social good by ensuring the continuation of viable businesses in times of hardship arising from the early and untimely deaths of key employees and thereby safeguards the jobs of all the other employees. Profit has noting do with it. Such policies do no more than recompense businesses for the loss of vital human capital.

"This anti-business reactionary nonsense is what's revolting and costs jobs. You lot would rather sink whole companies, all the employees and their families, through the unfortunate early deaths of important employees, just so you can say you have struck a blow at the ebil corporationz!!11!!1!."

- Ted Hornwood

OOC: You know keyman insurance is actually a thing IRL which isn't some unethical, shoddy business practice. I have never come across any proper country which has anything like this BS of paying half the policy to the employee's next of kin.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This is--in a word--revolting. Employers do not own their employees. They have no justification in attempting to profit off of a worker's death."

"Which would be all well and good if that's what the target resolution dealt with, but unfortunately it goes far further and effectively prevents employers from insuring against the loss or injury of their most important asset, IE their human capital. This reaction seems typical of the WA: a bunch of cosseted and sheltered diplomats, politicians and civil servants running rough shod over a legitimate and ethical business practice, which serves a greater social good by ensuring the continuation of viable businesses in times of hardship arising from the early and untimely deaths of key employees and thereby safeguards the jobs of all the other employees. Profit has noting do with it. Such policies do no more than recompense businesses for the loss of vital human capital.

"This anti-business reactionary nonsense is what's revolting and costs jobs. You lot would rather sink whole companies, all the employees and their families, through the unfortunate early deaths of important employees, just so you can say you have struck a blow at the ebil corporationz!!11!!1!."

Parsons: [stands up and claps] I don't think I could have said this any better. Thank you.

[Wallenburg]

"Which would be all well and good if that's what the target resolution dealt with, but unfortunately it goes far further and effectively prevents employers from insuring against the loss or injury of their most important asset, IE their human capital. This reaction seems typical of the WA: a bunch of cosseted and sheltered diplomats, politicians and civil servants running rough shod over a legitimate and ethical business practice, which serves a greater social good by ensuring the continuation of viable businesses in times of hardship arising from the early and untimely deaths of key employees and thereby safeguards the jobs of all the other employees. Profit has noting do with it. Such policies do no more than recompense businesses for the loss of vital human capital.

"This anti-business reactionary nonsense is what's revolting and costs jobs. You lot would rather sink whole companies, all the employees and their families, through the unfortunate early deaths of important employees, just so you can say you have struck a blow at the ebil corporationz!!11!!1!."

Parsons: [stands up and claps] I don't think I could have said this any better. Thank you.

"I don't think anyone could have said it more poorly. Claiming to own employees is hardly an ethical business practice, and my opposition to blatant corporate abuse of the rights of workers hardly classifies as 'anti-business' rhetoric. I have no problem with aiding businesses. As a lobbyist in Independence I consistently promoted bills to increase subsidies and grants to the Wallenburgian Union of Coal Workers and the Committee for the People's Agricultural Collectives, among others. This anti-worker rhetoric, however, disgusts me, and goes against the very employees you claim to support.

"So please, ambassadors, tell me how giving businesses ownership of workers' bodies protects the rights and prosperity of workers."

[Bananaistan]

"I don't think anyone could have said it more poorly. Claiming to own employees is hardly an ethical business practice, and my opposition to blatant corporate abuse of the rights of workers hardly classifies as 'anti-business' rhetoric. I have no problem with aiding businesses. As a lobbyist in Independence I consistently promoted bills to increase subsidies and grants to the Wallenburgian Union of Coal Workers and the Committee for the People's Agricultural Collectives, among others. This anti-worker rhetoric, however, disgusts me, and goes against the very employees you claim to support.

"So please, ambassadors, tell me how giving businesses ownership of workers' bodies protects the rights and prosperity of workers."

"Nobody is suggesting that a business owns an employee's body but it is possible that my usage of fairly bog standard business management and accounting terminology has lead to confusion so I'll dumb it down for you. Whilst an employee is employed by a business, that business has the use of that person's skills. In respect of key employees, those skills represent a significant intangible asset that are worth a lot to the business and everybody's job in the business may well depend on what that person brings to the table.

"If that person's skills are suddenly taken away from the business due to that person's death, it may well lead to the failure of the business, and everybody loses their jobs. This is what the business insures against. It's nothing to do with profit, it's everything to do with covering some or all of the cost arising from the sudden loss of the employee."

"The target resolution at least doubles the cost of this insurance as it includes key man insurance within its definition of dead peasant policies and forces at least 50% of any such policy to be paid to someone other than the business bearing 100% of the cost of the premiums. This may or may not have been the aim of the authors, but judging from the preamble, I doubt it was the aim of the voters. We need to correct this as soon as possible and allow businesses to protect the jobs of all the support staff and less skilled workers in the event of the death of indispensable employees."

- Ted Hornwood.

[Wrapper]

It's unfortunate we were not part of this assembly when the original resolution was debated.

We have no qualms with certain restrictions on Key Person Insurance, such as a consent requirement. Indeed, the preamble of the resolution mentions how appalling it is to buy such policies in secret. That said, the resolution is overreach, and the title itself is disingenuous and misleading. The idea behind Key Person Insurance isn't to profit off a worker's death; it's to reduce losses that will occur when a Key Person dies. This would be beneficial not only for small companies, particularly start-ups, which may take out policies on individual patent holders, founders, co-owners, etc., but it's also a benefit in professional sports. What's that sport called, Ahume? Batman-ball? (Ahume whispers.) Baseball. Yes. And other sports, too, where teams can take out insurance on a Key Person such as, for example, an all-star thrower, and be reimbursed a portion of their contract value not just if the thrower died, but also if his arm fell off, or he blew his fingers off in a fireworks accident, or if he suffered a ligament injury that would require John Thomas surgery. (Ahume whispers; Ari waves his hand at him.) Whoever.

We're in favor of a repeal.

[Excidium Planetis]

Parsons: Which then imposes a massive cost to such practices such that they are de facto impossible.

"That is entirely untrue. There is no extreme cost to it, the terms are quite reasonable, they are by no means so expensive so as to be impossible."

"No extreme cost? How is having to pay for twice as large of an insurance policy to be able to receive the same amount not an extreme cost? The fact that at least half the insurance payout must go to a beneficiary other than the employer, with the employer still paying for it, is ridiculous."

The use of such life insurances is thus actively disincentivised.

"The Imperium sees no problem with this. If an employer wishes to take an insurance policy out on an employee, the terms are quite reasonable. If they find them unacceptable, clearly that employee is not worth a sufficient amount to the company to warrant such a policy."

"Losing half your insurance on an employee is unreasonable."

Even if a company were so rich to take such a stupid economic move, it is not guaranteed that an employee would assent to this.

"Again, the Imperium sees no problem with this. Any contract by which another party is involved should require the consent of said party."

" I agree. But what a contract shouldn't involve is unreasonable monetary costs."

[Wallenburg]

"I don't think anyone could have said it more poorly. Claiming to own employees is hardly an ethical business practice, and my opposition to blatant corporate abuse of the rights of workers hardly classifies as 'anti-business' rhetoric. I have no problem with aiding businesses. As a lobbyist in Independence I consistently promoted bills to increase subsidies and grants to the Wallenburgian Union of Coal Workers and the Committee for the People's Agricultural Collectives, among others. This anti-worker rhetoric, however, disgusts me, and goes against the very employees you claim to support.

"So please, ambassadors, tell me how giving businesses ownership of workers' bodies protects the rights and prosperity of workers."

"Nobody is suggesting that a business owns an employee's body but it is possible that my usage of fairly bog standard business management and accounting terminology has lead to confusion so I'll dumb it down for you.

"I will remember that insult, Ambassador. Along with the others."

Whilst an employee is employed by a business, that business has the use of that person's skills. In respect of key employees, those skills represent a significant intangible asset that are worth a lot to the business and everybody's job in the business may well depend on what that person brings to the table.

"Indeed, that is true. How repealing this resolution would bring said employee back to life or otherwise recover his skills is beyond me."

"If that person's skills are suddenly taken away from the business due to that person's death, it may well lead to the failure of the business, and everybody loses their jobs. This is what the business insures against. It's nothing to do with profit, it's everything to do with covering some or all of the cost arising from the sudden loss of the employee."

"That's a very slippery slope, for one death to directly and entirely lead to the collapse of an entire business."

"The target resolution at least doubles the cost of this insurance as it includes key man insurance within its definition of dead peasant policies and forces at least 50% of any such policy to be paid to someone other than the business bearing 100% of the cost of the premiums. This may or may not have been the aim of the authors, but judging from the preamble, I doubt it was the aim of the voters. We need to correct this as soon as possible and allow businesses to protect the jobs of all the support staff and less skilled workers in the event of the death of indispensable employees."

Those other beneficiaries tend to be the families of the deceased, who usually will have a far harder time recovering from the death of their family member, who oftentimes is the sole source of income in the household. The families of the dead sure as hell deserve aid and compensation. I'm not sure why you object to them receiving half the insurance compensation."