OOC: To the TL:DRers: I am aware there is a mountain of text here. There is a lot wrong with this resolution and I want to spend a lot of time justifying myself for this action as it is my first in this body. The very bottom of the post includes a "tl:dr" justification if reading a few paragraphs is too much, the proposals themselves are in box tags. Still, if you really don't think that these insurance policies have valid uses, I encourage you to read my thoughts.
Greetings to my fellow ambassadors to this great body! Allow me to introduce myself, I am Ambassador Rubio of the great nation Conservative Values.
I rise today to share my ideas for improving an old resolution long ago passed and possibly currently forgotten by this body called "Ban Profits on Workers Deaths." There are many problems with this resolution, mainly I am alarmed at the flagrant use of overly emotional language that in my opinion caused our great body to make an unrational decision on this matter. Who wouldn't be outraged with corporations profiting from death and creating dead peasant policies? Evil capitalists, that's who!
As you will see, there are valid reasons for a business to engage in this practice. In some cases, it is even practically necessary. It was ridiculously uninformed for this body to declare itself "determined to end [this practice] once and for all." That being said there ARE valid concerns to address, but the best way to address them is to make sure that any insurance policies are based on realistic possibilities of costs. A big corporation shouldn't be taking out life insurance policies on 2000 cashiers because the death of 4 or 5 out of 2000 represents no real cost to that corporation. On the other hand losing a partner, losing an artist or losing a major manager to an untimely death can represent significant costs, and as long as the insurance policy is for an amount meant to match these possible costs it is NOT an attempt to "profit from death" it is merely an attempt to manage cash flows to be able to have resources available to match unexpected costs.
The two fundamental problems are: 1) The resolution as it stands does not address situations when employees also have an equity interest in their employer. 2) "Profit" generally means proceeds less costs, but this resolution seems to count all proceeds as "profit" even if the proceeds were merely received to offset costs incurred by losing a key person.
The failure of this resolution was to only think about large corporate businesses when forming this policy, while failing to take into account that small businesses are a major part of post economies and the most sensitive to losing key people. These policies are especially important to special types of small businesses like law firms, public accounting firms, and other professional firms whose ownership is restricted to people with certain certifications. When a member of such a firm dies and he is unable to leave his interest in his business to his wife or heirs (because they cannot legally own part of the business as lay people) the business has an obligation to compensate the family for the deceased partner's interest that has vanished. There are also important legal reasons to have life insurance policies on owners in what is commonly referred to as an "S Corporation" when they have non-resident alien family members (these are a bit complicated, so I'll skip a lengthy explanation but simple enough to say that in that case it is all but legally required to have a policy). Beyond the legal reasons, it is often the case that businesses want to buy out partners when they die simply because adding the wife/husband/little brats into the business leadership could go terribly if they are not good businessmen/people. All of these concerns COULD have been easily prevented simply by exempting from the standing resolution employees that also have an equity interest in the company, but it was not done. (Likely, if I had to guess, because then the evil big corporation could give one share to every employee and avoid the resolution totally.)
The second major failing is to completely ignore the very real costs that can come from losing a key employee. If you have an (only one) artist employed - let's say a piercing expert, and you own a tattoo parlour - and that artist dies, your business (or at least one segment of it) comes to a halt. Appointments are not fulfilled and all cash flow from that segment stops until a replacement can be found. You can still do tattoos, but John Doe was the only employee in the business who was licensed to do piercings (maybe it was just you and your one employee John). That's a real problem. Key employees aren't limited to artists though, they could be anyone in management that has a big enough job it would be hard to replace them on short notice, and their replacement is going to have a hard time filling the shoes (as obviously the deceased will not be there to train his/her replacement). These are real costs. If an insurance policy can be shown to be taken to offset the possibility of these costs should they occur, that isn't an attempt to "profit" it is an attempt to manage cash flows to be sure to have the resources available to cover these unexpected costs.
As I said at the begining, there are valid reasons for a business to engage in this practice. In some cases, it is even practically necessary. There was a better way to deal with these issues than the ridiculously clumsy route this body took all that time ago, and we need to fix it.
Now, my fellow ambassadors, having said ALL OF THAT.. And I do apologize, really. I believe it is long past time to REPEAL this resolution and REPLACE it with a much more moderate and reasoned resolution on the issue. I dutifully submit for your consideration and feed-back the following drafts, first to repeal the existing law, second being my proposed replacement. Please keep in mind that we ambassadors are not allowed to amend anything, repeal and replace is the only method we have to change laws.
Repeal "Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#233 | Proposed by: Conservative Values
The World Assembly,
Agreeing that employees should be aware if life insurance policies are taken out on their life,
Recognizing one major failure of the resolution was to consider situations when employees have an ownership interest in their employer that needs to be "bought back" if the individual dies,
Further recognizing the resolution seeks to call any proceeds received at the time of an employees death as "profit,"
Knowing the real definition of "profit" in this situation would have been proceeds from the insurance policy less costs faced due to the death,
Observing when the real definition of "profit" is applied, if an insurance policy is created so that proceeds are meant to offset real costs that could be incurred upon the death of an employee the policy is NOT an attempt to "profit" but to "break even" by matching the proceeds to the estimated costs,
Noting other resolutions of this body address unsafe working conditions,
Believing this well meaning resolution reaches too far by requiring the employers to gift large sums of money to the family without the employee to pay in to the policy,
Seeking more a more reasonable resolution on the issue in the future,
Hereby repeals GA #233 Ban Profits on Workers Deaths.
REPLACEMENT DRAFT IS HERE
TL:DR:
