[PASSED] Ban Profits on Workers’ Deaths

[Sionis Prioratus]

Did I lose something or has this co-authority of Christian Democrats emerged out of nowere?

Sionis Prioratus and I have been discussing this proposal via telegram. I've helped him revise the proposal twice, and he recently added my nation as a coauthor when he posted the current draft.

Indeed. Christian Democrats was instrumental in getting this done and well-done, it is not only deserved, but proper.

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

In other news, the Secretariat has ruled! It is submitted (as a Social Justice resolution), please approve:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1323974591

Yours and thank you all,

[Frenequesta]

It seems to be gaining support slower than it was as a Tort Reform resolution. I wonder if there are ulterior motives for some of the previous supporters....

[Sionis Prioratus]

It seems to be gaining support slower than it was as a Tort Reform resolution. I wonder if there are ulterior motives for some of the previous supporters....

I would rather not speculate one way or the other at this point. People do tend to get emotional over those things.

Yours,

OOC: For extremely good reasons (RL stuff), I may not be able to conduct a TG campaign, or maybe even be present at the debate, should this get to a vote.

[Knootoss]

Yes yes... the EVIL RIGHT WING CABAL [TM] who pointed out that it had been submitted in the wrong category did so because they would rather have seen a Social Justice resolution. (?!) Or else because they thought a tort reform resolution (total successfully passed: 0) would be more popular than a social justice resolution. (Total successfully passed: 1 billion +/-)


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

[Sionis Prioratus]

I would like to point out to all Ambassadors that, as a matter of fact, there is one Tort Reform resolution on the books. Further, I am not bothered in the least for the extra time and diligence the category issue took. If something is to be done, it is to be well done.

Yours,

[Parti Ouvrier]

I would like to point out to all Ambassadors that, as a matter of fact, there is one Tort Reform resolution on the books. Further, I am not bothered in the least for the extra time and diligence the category issue took. If something is to be done, it is to be well done.

Yours,

You have our support Ambassador.

Wez Spencer

[Ardchoille]

Yes yes... the EVIL RIGHT WING CABAL [TM] who pointed out that it had been submitted in the wrong category did so because they would rather have seen a Social Justice resolution. (?!) Or else because they thought a tort reform resolution (total successfully passed: 0) would be more popular than a social justice resolution. (Total successfully passed: 1 billion +/-)

IC: Noting that Ambassador Koopman has become over-excited again, the President of Ardchoille kindly sends round a messenger with a new bottle of Dried Frog Pills.

---

OOC: The use of Tort Reform for this proposal was the most seductive bit of reasoning I've seen in a long time. Nudging the whole question into the civil courts system was a particularly attractive feature.

Unfortunately, the hive mind ended up rejecting it because we felt the reading required to justify it was not the reading intended by the original.

For clarity, Tort Reform is a section of the Advancement of Industry category, and says this:

Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business. Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?

For the proposal to fit, "remove legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation" would be read as "remove legal barriers that prevent anti-corporate litigation", thus making it easier for citizens to sue corporations directly. This "removes it from government interference" by removing the whole question from the field of government fiat (legislation). If it's in the civil courts it's no longer the (executive branch of the) government interfering with corporations, it's the citizens, via the legal system.

Or, if you will, "from anti-corporate legislation" is read as a phrase describing what kind of legal barriers the proposal is intended to remove, ie --

Q: What are you removing the legal barriers from?
A: Anti-corporate legislation.

But, as Frenequesta pointed out here, "legal barriers from anti-corporate legislation" can also be read as "one big chunk", so that you have the meaning "legal barriers created by anti-corporate legislation", ie --

Q: What legal barriers are you removing?
A: The ones (coming) from anti-corporate legislation.

As you can see, these are contradictory readings. One makes it easier to sue businesses. The seond removes the laws that made it easier to sue businesses -- it is now harder to sue businesses.

Because of the title of the overall category -- "Advancement of Industry" -- and particularly because of the explanatory line, "Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?", we felt that the category is for proposals intended to benefit industry, even at its most dastardly, and therefore we couldn't countenance its use to "reform" industry by stopping it from exploiting a situation.

That left us with Social Justice, and, as one of the team pointed out, if you "flip" the proposal, its dark twin is a perfect fit for "Free Trade -- A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". So it's in the right area.

It is undeniably "imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do" and "moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system". However, " 'Social Justice' also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare".

We accepted that, for the purposes of meeting category requirements, that could be achieved via this proposal. Note that we don't read "welfare" to mean solely "a Government program which hands money directly to a citizen".

[Vagabundas]

"Go go go go!"

Yours excited,

[Ardchoille]

IC: *sends a spare bottle to the Vagabundan Ambassador*

[Sionis Prioratus]

OOC: I might as well try to pass one last resolution before all hell breaks loose. So much work... in vain. Here's a toast to happy memories.


IC: Dearest Ambassadors, I shall be soon mounting a TG campaign for this draft. Improvements are still welcome!

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

For the life of us we cannot remember how or why we did let such a fine project gather dust. Anyway, here we are again for a renewed hearing time on this draft.

Yours cataloguing old parchments,

[Knootoss]

OOC: We had a long talk about this on IRC after which you decided to pursue workers' rights by actually improving workers' rights. That was the reason for dropping this.

[Point Breeze]

The delegation from Point Breeze fully supports the current draft of this resolution. It's aged like wine, Ambassador.

[Sionis Prioratus]

The delegation from Point Breeze fully supports the current draft of this resolution. It's aged like wine, Ambassador.

We thank Your Excellency for Your Excellency's kind words, and for Your Excellency's support!

Yours dancing,

[Sionis Prioratus]

We would like to thank all the Delegates who, either spontaneously or convinced by the TG campaign, have lent their approval to this humble endeavor:

Approvals: 80 (Three Weasels, Towson, Thesum, Milograd, Ventei, Quelesh, United Confederation of states, The Union of Myanmar, The Enclave of by and for Delinquents, Marxist-Feminists, East Klent, Makaivellia, Feux, Bandz A Make Her Dance, New Warosia, Teaurnai, Terrasis, CoolLand, So i herd you liek mudkipz, The Humanist Federation, The North Polish Union, Anarchyst, Righteous Wavists, Jnania, Vancovaria, Anime Daisuki, Foyera, Dhul-Qarnayn, Steel Talons, Khanatah, Petrovskas, United Marxist Nations, Suceavija, Netherheim, Blackpool Lights, Liukangladesh, The Serbian Empire, Fortunati, Gordano and Lysandus, Esperius, Sokolovka, Altaslavia, Aurumaquaria, Maeamian, DGAS, Nordvegr, United Greater France, Honkong, Hercosk, The Happiness Islands, Ethanthova, Oneracon, Hjedium, Bhavva, Frickin America, Iberia Rebolucionaria, Great Zavi, Asser and Kissimi, Pewor, BearNation, Mikeswill, Prima Humanitas, Todd McCloud, Moral Raiders, Keronika, Dazchan, Mint Slice, Mad Jack, Slavotska, The Anglo People, Subandia, Kleinekatzen, Xuycaria, Reagan Island, Northern-Peoples, Alsted, Conrica, Luchdearg, Sovjet Union, Killadonia)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Immense thanks also to all the Ambassadors who have helped perfect this text over time.

On to the vote!

Yours anxious,

[Noob Colony]

Best lucks to the resolution-to-be! We will support this resolution.

[Westalio]

Hang on just a second...surely a corporation taking out such a policy would actually ensure greater safety in the workplace? Any insurance company, in such a situation, are going to put many requirements into such a policy to reduce the likelihood of them paying out (insurance companies are after a buck too). The Insurer will require strong levels of health and safety in the workplace for a policy to be valid, significantly reducing the risk of death;if the employer refuses to abide by such requirements, they won't get a pay-off

Westalio agrees wholeheartedly. While an individual's right to life and liberty is inalienable, they are also a human resource when being employed by a corporation. Like any other resource or factor of production, a corporation needs to be able to insure against the possibility of loss of that human resource. As stated by the representative from Cobdenia, this does not incentivize corporations to slaughter their employees. Furthermore, there are many ways that corporations could be disincentivized from slaughtering employees without regulating a corporation's internal insurance policies, such as legal reform to make corporations more liable for employee deaths. This resolution is nothing but an unnecessary intervention in the free market that reduces the ability for corporations to ensure their employees, thus increasing unemployment in the economy.

Additionally, Westalio deplores the deliberately incorrect and provocative use of the word "profit" in the title of this resolution. The resolution has little to do with corporate profits.

[Dogapus]

Voting For this

[The Two Jerseys]

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

The United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys votes against.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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

As our delegation recalls, when this proposal was first drafted, we referred to it as an attempt to eliminate "moral hazard" in industry. The ability of an employer to find more economic value in the death of their employees than in their well-being can tempt employers to act in ways injurious to their employees. At its core, the proposal is the promotion of moral behavior. It removes temptation to sin by eliminating a worldly gain from it.

We see that, by moving the proposal category to Social Justice, the authors and the Secretariat agree with our earlier assessment. We therefore rise in support of this proposal.

[Scootaworld]

It is the greatest honor of the delegation from the People's Republic, headed by Ambassador Udina, to vote in favor of this resolution.

[Ossitania]

The Ossitanian delegation offers its full support for this righteous measure.

[Grantsburg]

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

[Ertae]

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.

In support of all but this provision, which changes our approval to an abstention.