[Draft] On mining safety

[Ulil]

OOC: Can the [align=center] tags be removed for the actual body of the resolution? Please...?

Edit: Also, space out the lines, please.

Will do on second draft

[Ulil]

Safety is a category now?

Dealt with

[Chester Pearson]

Safety is a category now?

Dealt with

You do understand the category you are dealing with does not have a strength correct? Please tell the rest of the Assembly why we should trust you, or take the time to help you with your draft, when you will not take the time to read the rules....

[Defwa]

Great, now I can read it.

Categories are a little weird your first time. The rules at the top of this forum provides details on what categories mean and what the sub categories are.
I would suggest reading thoroughly through all of it. All the rules, all the categories before continuing.

But you're not sitting on a heap of illegalities like many first timers and that's okay. Consider participating in other debates to get an idea for what successful ambassadors do and what they look for.

In the mean time, a few problems here. You use arbitrary dates. They pose a one size fits all problem that doesn't do justice to nations with varying levels of technology. In those cases, if absolutely necessary, allowing your committee to do the work can help. Require the committee to do periodic inspections of safety equipment and require companies to submit reports on safety at request.

You also don't really do anything to increase safety. Safety equipment has to be recent but what is safety equipment? How are we supposed to keep people safe. If you don't have a pretty detailed knowledge of the subject, this can cause a problem. If you haven't already read mining safety reports or know about safety methods, I would drop this proposal now because writing is not the time to learn about the subject.

[The Dark Star Republic]

At least some of this is covered by the Workplace Safety Standards Act.

[Lalaki]

The Community of Lalaki is wondering whether or not a WA inspection committee is the most efficient way of safety.

Perhaps all national governments creating a committee?

[Mundiferrum]

The Community of Lalaki is wondering whether or not a WA inspection committee is the most efficient way of safety.

Perhaps all national governments creating a committee?

Well, the gnomes are pretty darn good at their jobs, so efficiency won't really be an issue. The real issue is whether this is needed at all, what with the Workplace Safety Standards and all...

[Defwa]

The Community of Lalaki is wondering whether or not a WA inspection committee is the most efficient way of safety.

Perhaps all national governments creating a committee?

The problem with making nations do stuff on their own is they will continue not to do it if given the chance.
Mandate that everyone make their own safety commissions and you get thousands of individual committees made of two people paid to drink coffee.

[Ulil]

Dealt with

You do understand the category you are dealing with does not have a strength correct? Please tell the rest of the Assembly why we should trust you, or take the time to help you with your draft, when you will not take the time to read the rules....

I have removed the strength first all. To your question? I believe that new comers come with more ideas that other WA experts cause they have used up most of there ideas. But I would love to learn more. I will read through the rules. Would you like to have you be my mentor if you have so much experience in the World Assembly?

[Ulil]

Great, now I can read it.

Categories are a little weird your first time. The rules at the top of this forum provides details on what categories mean and what the sub categories are.
I would suggest reading thoroughly through all of it. All the rules, all the categories before continuing.

But you're not sitting on a heap of illegalities like many first timers and that's okay. Consider participating in other debates to get an idea for what successful ambassadors do and what they look for.

In the mean time, a few problems here. You use arbitrary dates. They pose a one size fits all problem that doesn't do justice to nations with varying levels of technology. In those cases, if absolutely necessary, allowing your committee to do the work can help. Require the committee to do periodic inspections of safety equipment and require companies to submit reports on safety at request.

You also don't really do anything to increase safety. Safety equipment has to be recent but what is safety equipment? How are we supposed to keep people safe. If you don't have a pretty detailed knowledge of the subject, this can cause a problem. If you haven't already read mining safety reports or know about safety methods, I would drop this proposal now because writing is not the time to learn about the subject.

What you suggest I agree with we you statements. I have started reading mining safety reports and reading up more on the field. I also must say that you are right when it comes to time that my committee will handle it. And I will add more safety rules.

[Chester Pearson]

Double posting = BAD!!! Please don't do it. You can edit your comments into one post.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm sorry, I really don't see the point of this unless the mines are in international territory. This is an issue best handled at the national level."

[Normlpeople]

I have removed the strength first all. To your question? I believe that new comers come with more ideas that other WA experts cause they have used up most of there ideas.

"While I do agree there is always room for new blood and fresh ideas in this chamber, do remember that many of us have been here for some time, and much of what truly needs to be legislated on already has been. There is room for improvement, however, far too often we see newcomers enter these chambers preaching about legalizing rights that long have been. That said, what looks good on you is that you not only took time to post here first, but actually are listening to what is being said. As such, I will analyze your current draft.

Understanding:Mining can be a major source of economic income in a industrialized nations.

Seeing:That Mining would employ many individuals whose safety is on the line in working and operating in the removal of resources. That safety would need to be a more regulated in this dangerous practice.

"Your wording is rough here. You also have not convinced us why it needs to be internationally regulated beyond the protections already guaranteed by GAR #25 (Workplace Safety Standards Act)

Defining: A "mine" a facility and operation where in the extraction of geological materials from the earth occurs

"While there are loopholes possible, I would suggest removal of the definition completely. Mining is a category of resolution, it is safe to assume there is a universally accepted one already"

Therefore: Seeing that these practices need more oversight. Creates codes for a "mine" to follow.

"Nations are already required to have an oversight committee, why do we need an international one?"

1. A mine must update all the safety equipment every 4 years or 1,460 days.

"Safety Equipment is a poor catch-all term. It is equally poor in that every piece of equipment has a different shelf life. Some may require replacement far earlier than that, in which case, you have essentially legalized unsafe equipment. Other equipment, properly maintained, can function for decades. There may also be tremendous cost involved in keeping up with these arbitrary numbers"

2. A officer must be in place to take safety complaints and address them.

"Who is an officer? Again, GAR #25 requires there to be an oversight committee to address workplace complains. Pure duplication here"

3. All "mines" that have made over 1 ton of product must be certified by a World AssemblyThe bureau of mining safety Mine safety inspector.

"Most mines produce more than 1 ton of product. Tell me, are we talking a ton a day? A ton a year? A ton over its lifetime? Remind me again why a WA safety inspector could do what mine could not? I will also point out there is no World Assembly bureau of mining safety, you haven't created a committee anywhere in here."

4. All "mines" must turn in all accident reports to The bureau of mining safety every 6 months or 182 days.

"We require accident reports to be turned over no later than 24 hours after said accident. Quite frankly, this is absurd, toothless, and unnecessary."

To enforce these codes Creates and funds the The bureau of mining safety. To regulate the enforcement of all regulations. Make loans and grants to update safety in mines and to collaborate with local governments for the enforcement of these regulations.

"It is considered good form to create the committee before giving it tasks."

"All in all, I would say you have a healthy dose of illegality here. Not only are your operative clauses weak, and I am being generous in interpretation, but this reads more like a blog than a piece of international law. There is, as the delegation from the Dark Star Republic also pointed out, a healthy dose of duplication with GAR #25. Both of these would likely result in the proposal pulled and a strike against you. Perhaps reading the rules for drafts would be helpful.

I would suggest you read through the passed resolutions to get an idea of proper formatting and what is required for a successful draft. In this particular case, I would suggest abandoning the idea, as it is already adequately covered and does not require international oversight."

[Araraukar]

Alright, let's rip through this one then.

Understanding:Mining can be a major source of economic income in a industrialized nations.

Before this all, put "The World Assembly" on its own line with empty space before this, so that it's the body doing all the understanding and defining. That aside, I'd make this "Acknowledging" rather than "understanding", and it's also a bit of a false statement, since raw materials tends to be a major source of income (drop the "economic") to developing nations who don't yet have the industry needed to process said raw materials. Here, either drop the "a" or the "s" at the end. You can't have "a nations".

Seeing:That Mining would employ many individuals whose safety is on the line in working and operating in the removal of resources. That safety would need to be a more regulated in this dangerous practice.

The bit I struck out is self-repeating and unnecessary. The latter bit is your whole issue. I'd use something else but "Seeing" at the start.

Defining: A "mine" a facility and operation where in the extraction of geological materials from the earth occurs

Direct Wikipedia rip-off and, as such, an illegality. If you have to for some reason define a mine, use your own wordings.

Therefore: Seeing that these practices need more oversight. Creates codes for a "mine" to follow.

Right now this reads as "This is a mine and therefore seeing" - unacceptably clumsy and weird for resolution text. Drop the Therefore entirely. Also, it seems you're transitioning from the preamble to mandates, so before "creates", put "Hereby," all on its own line, surrounded by empty lines.

1. A mine must update all the safety equipment every 4 years or 1,460 days.

Even if all nations existed on the same planet - which they don't - arbitrary time settings aren't generally a good thing. And why every 4 years? It sounds pretty dangerously long period of time. Why not make it "regularly" or even "annually" (aka once a year)? Then the length of the year doesn't have any effect.

2. A officer must be in place to take safety complaints and address them.

An officer? A military officer? Where'd that come from?

3. All "mines" that have made over 1 ton of product must be certified by a World AssemblyThe bureau of mining safety Mine safety inspector.

Kill, kill, kill. Really, there's nothing worth salvaging in this bit.

4. All "mines" must turn in all accident reports to The bureau of mining safety every 6 months or 182 days.

...what's a bureau of mining safety? If you're making a committee and giving it stuff to do, create the committee first. Again, arbitrary time limits are a bad idea. Why not make it, too, "annually". And why's "mines" in quotation marks there?

To enforce these codes Creates and funds the The bureau of mining safety. To regulate the enforcement of all regulations.

Put this creation further up, before you give it anything to do.

Make loans and grants to update safety in mines and to collaborate with local governments for the enforcement of these regulations.

The stricken part makes no sense - the WA is not and should not be the party that pays for security upgrades for working businesses. The latter part I'm not sure you need to have, since WA resolutions are automatically enforced.

Now, two questions for you...

1) How does the existing resolution Workplace Safety Standards Act NOT already cover anything you've written? There's nothing in your proposal attempt, weak as it is, that wouldn't be more effectively covered by GAR#7.

2) How is it international issue, after you take out everything that's not duplication of GAR#7?

GAR #25 (Workplace Safety Standards Act)

OOC: GAR #25 is WA Counterterrorism Act.

[Tooters]

2. A officer must be in place to take safety complaints and address them.

3. All "mines" that have made over 1 ton of product must be certified by a World AssemblyThe bureau of mining safety Mine safety inspector.

I would say
"2. An officer must be in place to take and address safety complaints.

3. All mines that produce over 1 ton of product per year must be inspected and certified by The Bureau of Mining Safety."

[Normlpeople]

GAR #25 (Workplace Safety Standards Act)

OOC: GAR #25 is WA Counterterrorism Act.

OOC: Oops. Thats what I get for doing this with 8 tabs open while half asleep. Links still valid though thankfully.

[Egemore]

1. A mine must update all the safety equipment annually

Why? This seems like it would put a large burden on mines, as well as possibly disincentivizing mine safety. If the mine is going to have to replace the equipment every year, then what incentive does the operator have to invest in high grade safety gear that might last for 5 or 10 years? Many mine operator may choose to instead buy gear that would barely make it the year as to comply with the act with minimal cost.

2. An officer must be in place to take and address safety complaints.

Where is this officer stationed? In the mine? Considering the number of nations and therefore mines in WA, this seems like a poor use of resources for an act which is basically redundant since workers are already protected by GAR #7 Workplace Safety Standards Act.

3. All mines that produce over 1 ton of product per year must be inspected and certified by The Bureau of Mining Safety.

How did you come up with 1 ton as a cutoff number? Furthermore, how is the additional expense justified given that this already covered by GAR #7.

4. All "mines" must turn in all accident reports to The bureau of mining safety every 6 months or 182 days.

What is the purpose of this? How, specifically, does this action improve mine safety?

[Araraukar]

1. A mine must update all the safety equipment annually

If the mine is going to have to replace the equipment every year,

Update =/= replace.

If there's more effective gear to be had, it would make sense to update to that. If there isn't, then you make do with what you have. I agree the wording could be different, maybe "The owner of a mine must assess all safety equipment annually, replacing broken and outdated equipment" [OOC: author can steal that line if they want].