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

[Excidium Planetis]

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."

"The employer should not be forced to pay for the family's life insurance. If the employee is really that important to the family, they should buy their own insurance. Or work at a company that does offer free life insurance."

[Bananaistan]

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

"Good for you. My kudos for your memory skills."

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

"Ridiculous strawman argument that deserves nothing but contempt."

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

"So you deny that businesses could potentially fail if a key employee dies, or at least suffer significant loss of revenue because of the loss of the the key employee? Or is it just the case that you don't care about the support staff and their jobs?"

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."

"Lovely sentiments but completely irrelevant. What part of the target resolution requires any such aid and compensation? What part of the target resolution requires the employer to put in place life assurance for their employees?"

- Ted Hornwood

OOC: Did you look at any of the links detailing what key man insurance actually is?

[Wallenburg]

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."

"The employer should not be forced to pay for the family's life insurance. If the employee is really that important to the family, they should buy their own insurance. Or work at a company that does offer free life insurance."

"I disagree with that belief. You can blame it on my impoverished childhood or socialist education if you want an explanation."

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

"Ridiculous strawman argument that deserves nothing but contempt."

"How have I made a strawman of your argument. You asserted that you wish to resolve the problem of a business losing important talent and human capital. How else would you achieve this?"

"So you deny that businesses could potentially fail if a key employee dies, or at least suffer significant loss of revenue because of the loss of the the key employee? Or is it just the case that you don't care about the support staff and their jobs?"

"I am a a socialist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers."

"Lovely sentiments but completely irrelevant. What part of the target resolution requires any such aid and compensation? What part of the target resolution requires the employer to put in place life assurance for their employees?"

"When did I make the claim it does?"

OOC: Did you look at any of the links detailing what key man insurance actually is?

Yep, means exactly what I thought it does.

[Bananaistan]

"How have I made a strawman of your argument. You asserted that you wish to resolve the problem of a business losing important talent and human capital. How else would you achieve this?"

"Where did I or anyone else assert that this problem can be solved by “bringing back the dead”? Catch onto yourself Ambassador. Nobody has made any mention of necromancy. FFS, do you understand what insurance is? It's not about waving a magic wand to undo some bad event, it's about covering the costs associated with the bad event.

"I am a a socialist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers."

"A fine bumper sticker. It’s a shame your other contributions show your complete disregard for these workers.

"What about answering the other question which you quoted but didn’t address? I’ll repeat it for you: So you deny that businesses could potentially fail if a key employee dies, or at least suffer significant loss of revenue because of the loss of the key employee?

"When did I make the claim it does?"

Well you did bring this particular point into the debate: “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." So we can all be clear on this, are you now accepting that this comment is irrelevant so?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"The official position of the Confederate Dominion is that this resolution...means fuck-all to us. I give no shits about it. What I am in favor of is being able to help out a fried and colleague, so this has my tentative support."

OOC: Ossitania has made some fantastic and accurate points that I really think ought to be seriously considered, IA.

[Excidium Planetis]

"The employer should not be forced to pay for the family's life insurance. If the employee is really that important to the family, they should buy their own insurance. Or work at a company that does offer free life insurance."

"I disagree with that belief. You can blame it on my impoverished childhood or socialist education if you want an explanation."

"What on Terra would your impoverished childhood have to do with the principle that people should not be forced to pay for other people's stuff? Would you suggest that the family pay for the employer's insurance? No? Then why would you suggest the opposite?"

"How have I made a strawman of your argument. You asserted that you wish to resolve the problem of a business losing important talent and human capital. How else would you achieve this?"

"Maybe by allowing companies to recover a small part of their losses?"

"I am a a socialist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers."

"I am a capitalist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers. I would like to see worker's wages rise as the companies they work for succeed rather than fail, and I would like to see workers earn enough Credits to purchase their own life insurance. And indeed, in Excidium Planetis our capitalist policies have succeeded in achieving this in spite of the obstacles the WA has placed in our way."

[Wallenburg]

"Where did I or anyone else assert that this problem can be solved by “bringing back the dead”? Catch onto yourself Ambassador. Nobody has made any mention of necromancy. FFS, do you understand what insurance is? It's not about waving a magic wand to undo some bad event, it's about covering the costs associated with the bad event.

"I agree with that entirely. I've been trying to understand how you think that insurance can recover lost talent."

"I am a a socialist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers."

"A fine bumper sticker. It’s a shame your other contributions show your complete disregard for these workers.

"With all due respect, stop fucking with me, Ambassador."

"What about answering the other question which you quoted but didn’t address? I’ll repeat it for you: So you deny that businesses could potentially fail if a key employee dies, or at least suffer significant loss of revenue because of the loss of the key employee?

"I do not deny that. I simply am pointing out that complete business failure due to a single person's death is a very unlikely case, better handled as an exception rather than the rule."

"When did I make the claim it does?"

Well you did bring this particular point into the debate: “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." So we can all be clear on this, are you now accepting that this comment is irrelevant so?"

"That point has absolutely nothing to do with your question--'What part of the target resolution requires any such aid and compensation? What part of the target resolution requires the employer to put in place life assurance for their employees?'--directed at me as if I were claiming that the targeted resolution does those things."

---

"I disagree with that belief. You can blame it on my impoverished childhood or socialist education if you want an explanation."

"What on Terra would your impoverished childhood have to do with the principle that people should not be forced to pay for other people's stuff? Would you suggest that the family pay for the employer's insurance? No? Then why would you suggest the opposite?"

"Because poor families are far less likely than businesses to be able to pay for insurance. It's a pretty simple concept. Wealthy people can afford more stuff than impoverished people."

"How have I made a strawman of your argument. You asserted that you wish to resolve the problem of a business losing important talent and human capital. How else would you achieve this?"

"Maybe by allowing companies to recover a small part of their losses?"

"Which the targeted resolution already does."

"I am a a socialist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers."

"I am a capitalist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers. I would like to see worker's wages rise as the companies they work for succeed rather than fail, and I would like to see workers earn enough Credits to purchase their own life insurance. And indeed, in Excidium Planetis our capitalist policies have succeeded in achieving this in spite of the obstacles the WA has placed in our way."

"I would like to see workers' wages rise as the companies they work for succeed rather than fail, and I would like to see workers earn enough CRUs to purchase their own life insurance. And indeed, in Wallenburg our socialistic policies have succeeded in achieving this, with further support from the World Assembly's progressive policy."

[Ossitania]

"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.

Here's our perspective:

1) Any business that would be thrown into such disarray by the death of a key employee that it would actually cost jobs is a badly-run business and the question of whether it's worth saving if it's so fragile should be left to the market - if either the state or private interests deem it essential enough to bail out, subsidise or otherwise invest in maintaining, they can do so, but the idea we need to take a brave stand to protect the corporations so bad at turning profit that layoffs would follow the death of a single employee is preposterous.

2) Key man policies are only lumped in with dead peasant policies if they're done without the employee's consent. Otherwise, they're fine, and I don't think a consent requirement is a huge ask given it's unclear why any employee would not consent, either at the point of employment, or given it's basically a free life insurance policy.

3) You're radically overstating how costly the premiums are going to be. There are companies that take out COLIs on all employees, even though many of those workers will leave the company long before their death, and the companies will therefore never see the benefits (OOC: Wal-Mart in the 90s), because the premiums on COLIs they'll never even claim are a perfectly manageable business expense, let alone ones they do, where the payout is based on expected loss in a worst-case scenario, and almost always much higher than the actual loss, so the payout is not only a profit against the loss caused by the employee's death, but a profit against the loss and the premiums. Even beyond that, I think you're forgetting that whole point of insurance is that you're hoping to never claim it. By its very nature, one almost always pay in more than one gets out.

4) I also think you're radically overstating the impact of the cost, even as high as you're imagine it, as a cost of business paid on a monthly basis, like, the premiums are likely lower than even an ordinary life insurance policy because they're much lower risk (most never result in a payout), because of the relative bargaining power of a company compared to a private individual and because competition is more likely to drive the price of premiums down when insurers aren't just competing to attract individuals, but companies who will almost certainly give them repeat business.

5) The idea that the business should get 100% of the benefits of anything they pay 100% for is a strange one considered in the context of actual business practices, not least of all other kinds of insurance employees might receive as part of their employment, where the employer is paying 100% of the costs and receiving 0% of the benefits, and it's not even insurance against their own losses!

6) The industry standard for best ethical practice regarding COLIs is already that the employee's family should receive at least a significant portion of the payout, but even if that wasn't the case, it seems more than legitimate for the WA to aim for higher ethical standards.

[Excidium Planetis]

"What on Terra would your impoverished childhood have to do with the principle that people should not be forced to pay for other people's stuff? Would you suggest that the family pay for the employer's insurance? No? Then why would you suggest the opposite?"

"Because poor families are far less likely than businesses to be able to pay for insurance. It's a pretty simple concept. Wealthy people can afford more stuff than impoverished people."

"Businesses are not 'wealthy people', Ambassador. In fact, many times businesses are run by impoverished people. Small businesses likely cannot afford to pay double for life insurance on their employees, thus leaving the employees with no insurance at all, and the small businesses have to cope with the loss of key employees."

"Maybe by allowing companies to recover a small part of their losses?"

"Which the targeted resolution already does."

Technically, yes. Effectively, no. Double rates on insurance is not feasible for most small businesses."

"I am a capitalist, Ambassador. I can assure you, I care about workers. I would like to see worker's wages rise as the companies they work for succeed rather than fail, and I would like to see workers earn enough Credits to purchase their own life insurance. And indeed, in Excidium Planetis our capitalist policies have succeeded in achieving this in spite of the obstacles the WA has placed in our way."

"I would like to see workers' wages rise as the companies they work for succeed rather than fail, and I would like to see workers earn enough CRUs to purchase their own life insurance. And indeed, in Wallenburg our socialistic policies have succeeded in achieving this, with further support from the World Assembly's progressive policy."

"Good for your nation. However, I may point out that WA reports indicate that citizens in Excidium Planetis earn 50% more on average than citizens in Wallenberg. Not that it really matters."

[Imperium Anglorum]

1) Any business that would be thrown into such disarray by the death of a key employee that it would actually cost jobs is a badly-run business and the question of whether it's worth saving if it's so fragile should be left to the market - if either the state or private interests deem it essential enough to bail out, subsidise or otherwise invest in maintaining, they can do so, but the idea we need to take a brave stand to protect the corporations so bad at turning profit that layoffs would follow the death of a single employee is preposterous.

2) Key man policies are only lumped in with dead peasant policies if they're done without the employee's consent. Otherwise, they're fine, and I don't think a consent requirement is a huge ask given it's unclear why any employee would not consent, either at the point of employment, or given it's basically a free life insurance policy.

3) You're radically overstating how costly the premiums are going to be. There are companies that take out COLIs on all employees, even though many of those workers will leave the company long before their death, and the companies will therefore never see the benefits (OOC: Wal-Mart in the 90s), because the premiums on COLIs they'll never even claim are a perfectly manageable business expense, let alone ones they do, where the payout is based on expected loss in a worst-case scenario, and almost always much higher than the actual loss, so the payout is not only a profit against the loss caused by the employee's death, but a profit against the loss and the premiums. Even beyond that, I think you're forgetting that whole point of insurance is that you're hoping to never claim it. By its very nature, one almost always pay in more than one gets out.

4) I also think you're radically overstating the impact of the cost, even as high as you're imagine it, as a cost of business paid on a monthly basis, like, the premiums are likely lower than even an ordinary life insurance policy because they're much lower risk (most never result in a payout), because of the relative bargaining power of a company compared to a private individual and because competition is more likely to drive the price of premiums down when insurers aren't just competing to attract individuals, but companies who will almost certainly give them repeat business.

5) The idea that the business should get 100% of the benefits of anything they pay 100% for is a strange one considered in the context of actual business practices, not least of all other kinds of insurance employees might receive as part of their employment, where the employer is paying 100% of the costs and receiving 0% of the benefits, and it's not even insurance against their own losses!

6) The industry standard for best ethical practice regarding COLIs is already that the employee's family should receive at least a significant portion of the payout, but even if that wasn't the case, it seems more than legitimate for the WA to aim for higher ethical standards.

This is our view of the matter: Businesses have a right as a legal person to use financial instruments to assuage risk. Assuaging risk requires that premiums paid to that insurance be compensated in the case of the contractual obligation with a payout. That payout should follow the premiums.

Because the payout currently does not equal the premium, per WA, not domestic legislation, this is an issue. This is since the lack of equivalence between the actor which pays the premium and the actor which receives benefit. Due to the distribution of the payout, companies will not take out insurance. Insurance companies because the payout and the premiums are the same, do not change anything based on this resolution. Because a company therefore has to pay at least two times the premiums for the payout which would have occurred should this not have been enacted, this is imposes a cost onto companies.

Now, addressing all of your points (by point):

1. Corporate structure has many bottlenecks. The existence of integral and core employees is empirically true. The cost on companies if those employees suddenly died necessitates insurance. If your nation wishes to ban these financial instruments, please do so, in your nation, and not globally.
   
   
2. Key man policies are fundamentally different from dead peasant policies. The former is a legitimate business practice. The latter is a practice which only originates from the arbitrage opportunity of information between the information given to an insurance company and the employer. The insurance company would, with more information, adjust premiums on any company purposefully deceiving them. The lack of this corrective measure is due to information mismatches. It is therefore better to correct that information mismatch than ban the entire instrument entirely. This really is like seeing something bad about, lets say, antibiotics, and deciding to solve the problem by making them prohibitively expensive.
   
   
3. See points made above in ¶ 2.
   
   
4. You're assuming that a company which takes these insurance policies controls enough of the market in an area to fundamentally alter the prices given to that company. This is not always the case.
   
   
5. Those benefits spoken of (OOC: like health insurance à la US) are part of employee compensation. They are included perks designed to pay the employee in kind for services rendered. This is nothing of the sort. This is here to make sure that the loss of an employee does not damage the corporation.
   
   
6. Then, those would be part of the compensation package signed onto by the employee. Given that, the World Assembly should still not be regulating the affairs of domestic employee compensation.

[Normlpeople]

Clover spoke up again "There is a difference between a dead peasent policy and a key employee one. One is easily replaceable, the other is not. Its definitely threatening to the lpng term health of a company when an R&D head dies, taking vast knowledge of the top secret research into a new innovative product with them. The company should be able to seek compensation for this. My issue is the current legislation does not make the distinction.

The rhetoric that the workers family is entitled to half of a policy they didn't contribute to is laughable. This is coming from someone who grew up in extreme poverty herself and doesn't use it as an excuse to demand entitlement. Thankfully, we have corrected this issue with supplemental domestic legislation to ensure beneficiaries pay thier share."

[Bananaistan]

"I feel that Ambassador Parsons has adequately replied to the points raised by the Ossitanian delegation. His views are close enough to ours that we would be adding nothing by merely restating his point of view in reply. The same can be said of the reply by the delegation representing Excidium Planetis to the Wallenburgian delegation."

- Ted Horwood

OOC: I just want to take one point, which I feel is near impossible to do IC.

1) Any business that would be thrown into such disarray by the death of a key employee that it would actually cost jobs is a badly-run business and the question of whether it's worth saving if it's so fragile should be left to the market - if either the state or private interests deem it essential enough to bail out, subsidise or otherwise invest in maintaining, they can do so, but the idea we need to take a brave stand to protect the corporations so bad at turning profit that layoffs would follow the death of a single employee is preposterous.

You do know that key man insurance is a real thing in the real world? Particularly for small businesses, the sudden loss of a key employee is likely to devastate the business. There's nothing preposterous about it. It's a business reality that many businesses are dependent on one or a few key members of staff. If it wasn't a real risk that actually happens, the concept of key man insurance would not exist.

[Ossitania]

You do know that key man insurance is a real thing in the real world? Particularly for small businesses, the sudden loss of a key employee is likely to devastate the business. There's nothing preposterous about it. It's a business reality that many businesses are dependent on one or a few key members of staff. If it wasn't a real risk that actually happens, the concept of key man insurance would not exist.

OOC: I think it's clear from multiple statements I've made that I understand key man insurance is a real thing, what I said is preposterous is that we, as the World Assembly, need to legislate with a view to protecting businesses that would literally dip so dramatically due to the death of single employees that it would cost jobs or potentially the entire business. I was taking a political position on how legislation should deal with such businesses, not questioning whether such businesses exist or not – it's obviously the case that they do, though it's also obviously the case that almost all the time, key man insurance is not bought by such small businesses, but by very large corporations that aren't protecting against the risk of total devastation, but against noticeable but hardly destructive effects on their bottom line, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

This is our view of the matter: Businesses have a right as a legal person to use financial instruments to assuage risk. Assuaging risk requires that premiums paid to that insurance be compensated in the case of the contractual obligation with a payout. That payout should follow the premiums.

A right to use financial instruments to assuage risk and a responsibility to conform to high ethical standards in the use of such financial instruments, a responsibility enshrined in international legislation to ensure compliance.

Because the payout currently does not equal the premium, per WA, not domestic legislation, this is an issue. This is since the lack of equivalence between the actor which pays the premium and the actor which receives benefit. Due to the distribution of the payout, companies will not take out insurance. Insurance companies because the payout and the premiums are the same, do not change anything based on this resolution. Because a company therefore has to pay at least two times the premiums for the payout which would have occurred should this not have been enacted, this is imposes a cost onto companies.

This is based on an assumption that the payout won't double as the cost of compensating the family becomes a loss due to employee death on top of the projected loss, e.g. the payout is double the projected loss and the premiums reflect that. Furthermore, as already stated, and not challenged in your own response, the industry standard for best ethical practice for COLIs already includes compensating the family, though typically not as much as the target resolution requires, and this has no more affected the cost of COLIs than compliance with the target resolution does, which is to say, not enough to actually make them prohibitively expensive, even with the increased cost of compensating the family, nor has it affected whether companies buy COLIs or not, given at least companies choose to divide the payout, nor is there any reason to believe the distribution of payout would ever be a factor in whether they take COLIs out or not, given they are necessary, and given the payout will cover the projected loss regardless, and the projected loss is typically greater than the actual loss, etc etc and so forth.

Corporate structure has many bottlenecks. The existence of integral and core employees is empirically true. The cost on companies if those employees suddenly died necessitates insurance. If your nation wishes to ban these financial instruments, please do so, in your nation, and not globally.

We're not questioning the existence of such bottlenecks, we're disagreeing that legislation should be written in such a way as to protect companies that risk actual devastation from such bottlenecks. We stand by our earlier analysis of why the requirement for consent will never present an impediment to key man insurance (OOC: which was written OOC, but only because you went OOC for literally no reason, so I'm gonna refer to it IC nonetheless), and we're happy to take the position that any company that wants to take out a key man policy should be able to shoulder the cost of doing so, including the extra cost of providing compensation to the deceased's family, and if they're not able to do so, should be subject to the whims of the market.

Furthermore, we have no wish to ban these financial instruments, and have made that quite clear, since we're defending a piece of legislation that maintains their legality, but sets a higher ethical burden than would otherwise exist for companies that choose to take them out, but even if we did want to ban them, just telling us to do it in our own jurisdiction and not on the international stage is something you could say about literally any piece of WA legislation, and not an actual argument.

Key man policies are fundamentally different from dead peasant policies. The former is a legitimate business practice. The latter is a practice which only originates from the arbitrage opportunity of information between the information given to an insurance company and the employer. The insurance company would, with more information, adjust premiums on any company purposefully deceiving them. The lack of this corrective measure is due to information mismatches. It is therefore better to correct that information mismatch than ban the entire instrument entirely. This really is like seeing something bad about, lets say, antibiotics, and deciding to solve the problem by making them prohibitively expensive.

Yes, they are different things, and the target resolution doesn't actually ban either of them, it just requires employee consent and sets a higher ethical burden than would otherwise exist. For the purposes of the resolution, yes, the term "dead peasant policy" was defined inaccurately and manipulatively in order to improve the resolution's chances of passing, but given it does so, it never actually legislates on the legality of dead peasant policies as the term is commonly used (since a financial instrument fitting that description is never referred to in the legislation) and doesn't therefore have any effect on the practice of dead peasant policies as a manipulation of tax arbitrages, or on the practice of key man policies except to, as already stated, require consent from the insured and set a higher ethical burden.

In so far as it does make key man policies more expensive, our position is that the costs of fulfilling that higher ethical burden are warranted because we think the WA should hold businesses to higher ethical standards than merely the self-interested incentive to profit.

See points made above in ¶ 2.

Nothing in the above points addresses my claims about the cost of COLIs, and how we believe you're overstating them.

You're assuming that a company which takes these insurance policies controls enough of the market in an area to fundamentally alter the prices given to that company. This is not always the case.

No, I said

(1) companies have comparatively more ability to negotiate prices than the average private citizen, which is true,

(2) the market for COLIs is more competitive than the market for private life insurance because there are more companies seeking COLIs than insurance companies that provide them, and those companies represent multiple opportunities for insurance companies because they have many workers (OOC: Nestlé alone has somewhere in the region of 18,000 COLIs at any given time) whereas private individuals represent singular opportunities, e.g. it's a buyer's market in the same way that supermarkets get lower prices from their wholesale providers than ma & pa grocers because they provide more and more certain opportunities across more and more certain time than ma & pa grocers, which is true,

(3) the fact that companies have been able to take COLIs out on their entire workforce, even though their ability to recoup the cost of the COLIs, whether it's key man or dead peasant, is contingent on the death of their employee, is evidence that COLIs, even with the increase in cost associated with the higher ethical burden, are clearly not so prohibitively expensive as to adversely affect almost any business, particularly given, as noted in my unaddressed third point, most COLIs are never claimed, and most COLIs that are claimed cover a projected loss that exceeds the actual loss.

As to the way you read the point, regardless of what legislation is in place, some companies will not be able to negotiate prices to the same extent as other companies, and some companies will not be able to afford key man insurance, but, as we've already stated, what's the point of the free market if it's invisible hand doesn't punish inadequacy?

Those benefits spoken of (OOC: like health insurance à la US) are part of employee compensation. They are included perks designed to pay the employee in kind for services rendered. This is nothing of the sort. This is here to make sure that the loss of an employee does not damage the corporation.

That was just an example of one cost. Companies rarely get 100% of the benefit of anything for which they pay 100% of the cost, regardless of what it's purpose is supposed to be, and complaining that's the case in regards to COLIs is just an absurd position to take. For example, they don't get 100% of the benefit of compliance with environmental regulations, because it necessarily costs to be ethical, which is why legislation is necessary to force them to do so. If you're problem is with holding business to higher ethical standards than the self-interested incentive to profit, just say so, and we can agree to disagree, shake hands and walk away.

Then, those would be part of the compensation package signed onto by the employee. Given that, the World Assembly should still not be regulating the affairs of domestic employee compensation.[/list]

Sure, you can frame it that way if you want, and as a result of the target resolution, it is mandatory for all companies operating within the jurisdiction of member-states to provide that compensation to any employee on whom they take out a COLI. Not clear why the WA shouldn't regulate such affairs, but it increasingly seems like you just have a principled objection to the imposition of higher ethical standards than would otherwise exist. In fact, reading over your response, that seems to be the case, as you state on at least a couple of occasions that the resolution imposes a cost on businesses, with no further explanation of why that cost is unreasonable, unfair or unwarranted, so, I'm gonna assume that's your position and check out, since we're clearly at an ideological impasse. Hopefully you'll consider at least some of my contributions worth considering, even if you're at odds with the ideological project as a whole.

[Losthaven]

Agree this should be repealed, but not for the "why must we regulate poor little business so... Free Trade!" reasons currently provided. Just about every "Free Trade" resolution we have does little or nothing to actually increase consumer choice or economic liberty - instead, this assembly has interpreted Free Trade to mean regulating markets to produce "orderly" economic activity, reasoning that excessive economic freedom would result in uncertainty that would discourage consumers and lead to dogs and cats living together and potato salad falling from the sky, or some other nonsense, I can never keep it straight...

In any case, I would agree with others who have mentioned that a bigger problem with BPWD is that it displays a poor, reactionary understanding to the practice of employers insuring their work force, and follows that up with a blanket ban on a practice with legitimate uses. In the minds of BPWD's authors, there's some Scrooge McDuck behind these policies just waiting for an employee to keel over so they can "profit" off that death (I pause to mention that, by definition, one cannot "profit" off of an insurance payout because insurance exists only to make one whole for a loss).

A call for more reasonable employer insurance regulations would probably be appropriate.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I think it's clear from multiple statements I've made that I understand key man insurance is a real thing, what I said is preposterous is that we, as the World Assembly, need to legislate with a view to protecting businesses that would literally dip so dramatically due to the death of single employees that it would cost jobs or potentially the entire business. I was taking a political position on how legislation should deal with such businesses, not questioning whether such businesses exist or not – it's obviously the case that they do, though it's also obviously the case that almost all the time, key man insurance is not bought by such small businesses, but by very large corporations that aren't protecting against the risk of total devastation, but against noticeable but hardly destructive effects on their bottom line, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

OOC: See that's the thing though. The prevalence of key man insurance in small businesses is far greater than "almost all the time" they don't have it. And in the event of large corporations buying it when they are unlikely to be completely tanked by the death of one employee, I think that's all well and good. In such cases where the death occurs of a key employee, there is going to be a cost that they are entitled to insure against without the dead hand of government sticking its oar in dictating to whom the "benefits" must go without those beneficiaries carrying any of the cost.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

The representatives here are perhaps forgetting the basic purpose of this law, which is the prevention of "moral hazard". "Moral hazard" is a situation where a company finds it is economically advantageous to risk the lives and health of its employees. "Moral hazard" does not distinguish between those employees who are vital to a business's health and those who could be replaced. No person, whether a "key" or a common worker, should be put in a position where they are worth more to their employer dead than alive.

We recognize that the requirement to divide any employee life insurance payout between the company and the employee's designated heirs is a burden on business. We claim, though, that it is a manageable burden, and one worth imposing to prevent "moral hazard". It's simply a matter of common decency.

[The Two Jerseys]

This repeal has our full support. We believe that it is well within a company's rights to insure themselves against loss of future earnings.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resurrected.

[Ossitania]

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,

This is an argument against any WA resolution that limits free trade in any way, which seems to vindicate my suspicion that your delegation is just opposed in principle to any international legislation that expects companies to pay to be ethical.

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,

You've given no reason why anyone should believe this. What is your measure of utility? If we measure utility in terms of profit, it does. If we measure utility in terms of justice, we'd argue the opposite is true.

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,

What does this even mean? Elaborate.

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

Empty words until the resolution explains what kind of action needs to be taken. Also, is absolute necessity the only justification for international legislation? What if it's possible to do so domestically but more efficient to do so internationally?

[Imperium Anglorum]

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,

This is an argument against any WA resolution that limits free trade in any way, which seems to vindicate my suspicion that your delegation is just opposed in principle to any international legislation that expects companies to pay to be ethical.

I suppose it is. However, the WA has passed legislation arguing the opposite and this simply notes the fact that doing so is ideologically consistent.

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,

You've given no reason why anyone should believe this. What is your measure of utility? If we measure utility in terms of profit, it does. If we measure utility in terms of justice, we'd argue the opposite is true.

Prohibitions of financial products decrease the general utility and increase market volatility. Without the stabilising effect of coordinated secondary markets, which is the next element:

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,

What does this even mean? Elaborate.

The problem with any kind of product is a lack of consistent expectations of returns that serves to rebalance initial valuations in secondary markets. Creating a more effective market also requires the establishment of greater information exchange and the elimination of such information asymmetries.

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

Empty words until the resolution explains what kind of action needs to be taken. Also, is absolute necessity the only justification for international legislation? What if it's possible to do so domestically but more efficient to do so internationally?

[/quote]
This is a repeal. One cannot legislate in it. On the next question, we would argue that in a perfect world, yes. The latter is a precondition for the former and we do not see this resolution meeting that bar.

[Ossitania]

I suppose it is. However, the WA has passed legislation arguing the opposite and this simply notes the fact that doing so is ideologically consistent.

There is nothing ideologically inconsistent about non-absolute positions.

Prohibitions of financial products decrease the general utility and increase market volatility. Without the stabilising effect of coordinated secondary markets, which is the next element:

There is no such concept as "the general utility". Utility depends on what you value. Have the honesty to actually name a value you believe is depressed by this resolution, and the conviction to defend its importance.

The problem with any kind of product is a lack of consistent expectations of returns that serves to rebalance initial valuations in secondary markets. Creating a more effective market also requires the establishment of greater information exchange and the elimination of such information asymmetries.

Jesus Christ, it's already not clever to deter criticism by using opaque language, but you specifically are definitely not clever enough to pull it off. Your tactics are pathetic and transparent. Be specific.

This is a repeal. One cannot legislate in it. On the next question, we would argue that in a perfect world, yes. The latter is a precondition for the former and we do not see this resolution meeting that bar.

We are not asking that the resolution legislate, we are asking the resolution substantiate its claims. Explain what the problems are, explain how they are either only possible to solve on the domestic front or more efficient to solve on the domestic front.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I suppose it is. However, the WA has passed legislation arguing the opposite and this simply notes the fact that doing so is ideologically consistent.

There is nothing ideologically inconsistent about non-absolute positions.

This notes that inconsistency.

Prohibitions of financial products decrease the general utility and increase market volatility. Without the stabilising effect of coordinated secondary markets, which is the next element:

There is no such concept as "the general utility". Utility depends on what you value. Have the honesty to actually name a value you believe is depressed by this resolution, and the conviction to defend its importance.

There is. Such things like... national income, the existence of deadweight loss, income per capita, things like externalities...

The problem with any kind of product is a lack of consistent expectations of returns that serves to rebalance initial valuations in secondary markets. Creating a more effective market also requires the establishment of greater information exchange and the elimination of such information asymmetries.

Jesus Christ, it's already not clever to deter criticism by using opaque language, but you specifically are definitely not clever enough to pull it off. Your tactics are pathetic and transparent. Be specific.

Specifically, the issue is an asymmetry of information between the worker and the company. Creating a barrier to commerce is not a solution to that asymmetry of information. Resolving it would be. Naturally, I will contend that this the response I gave is very clear, very helpful, and extremely specific. What really needs to be shown are the benefits to the target resolution and how it solves the situation in a better way than could be otherwise.

This is a repeal. One cannot legislate in it. On the next question, we would argue that in a perfect world, yes. The latter is a precondition for the former and we do not see this resolution meeting that bar.

We are not asking that the resolution legislate, we are asking the resolution substantiate its claims. Explain what the problems are, explain how they are either only possible to solve on the domestic front or more efficient to solve on the domestic front.

Considering that international legislation here creates deadweight loss and that it takes such massive action, the removal of such restrictions and the fact that it is not reinstated in all countries means that deadweight loss decreases.