[DRAFT] Act for the Protection of Miners

by **Marzicon** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:31 am

[quote]Act for the Protection of Miners

Category: Health
Area of Effect: Healthcare
Proposed by: The Republic of Marzicon

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the dangers associated with mining operations,

Acknowledging that not all mining companies and organizations can be trusted with providing adequate mining safeties,

Keeping in mind the long-term health risks associated with mining,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution:

- Operation: any site or location used by a mining organization for the purposes of substance extraction,
- Open-pit mining: a mining operation with a wide, deep hole is created in order to extract substances,

2. MANDATES that all member-states with a mining sector to hereby enact these changes:

- Regulations to mandate deep-surface mining operations and open-pit mining operations to have proper ventilation systems and other measures placed with the goal of stabilizing the air quality of the surrounding environment of toxic, mine-related gases and particles to 5000 parts-per-million,
- Require all mining employees, if they are carbon-based life forms, to be fully clothed and require employees to be wearing necessary additional safety equipment including but not limited to reflective jackets and air filtration systems,
- If need be, require robotic assistants and workers in the operation sites to be fully cleaned post-operation whilst maintaining a constant state of reliability through regular maintenance,
- Provide medical access and screenings for mining-specific illnesses including, but not limited to, respiratory infections and cancers,
- Require mining companies adequately pay their workers for their high-risk occupations through benefits and insurance plans which protect workers from the physical and medical dangers posed by mining operations,

3. ENCOURAGES that member-states create a safety board for the inspection of mining agencies and for the protection of miners,

4. CLARIFIES that this resolution also implies regulations be placed on any and all sectors that directly require the extraction of naturally occurring ground-based substances for the purpose of sale on the open market, and not to more artificially-created extraction industries, including but not limited to agriculture, in this regard,[/spoiler]

Original Draft

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:37 am

OOC

Not too bad for a first draft, but...

1/ There's no 'Mining' category under current rules: However, you can specify Mining as the affected industry for 'Environmental' proposals, if that seems appropriate.
2/ Some bits of this are already covered by GA Resolution #7 'Workplace Safety Standards Act'.

Best wishes, and good luck!

by **Marzicon** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:45 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC

Not too bad for a first draft, but...

1/ There's no 'Mining' category under current rules: However, you can specify Mining as the affected industry for 'Environmental' proposals, if that seems appropriate.
2/ Some bits of this are already covered by GA Resolution #7 'Workplace Safety Standards Act'.

Best wishes, and good luck!

Thank you Bears.

If I may inquire, how could I follow through with your first proposal? I have no problem with the specificity of the problem under the "Environmental" proposal. In retrospect, this is more of a "Labor" proposal. Is there a happy medium there?

Second, you are correct about WA Res. #7, however the last clause does state that the resolution does not bar any stringent resolutions from being passed in the future. Seeing that this resolution is specific to the extraction sector of the economy and offers more specific changes to the workplace environment, I'd argue that this resolution falls under the "stringent" category.

Thank you for your input, Bears. I would enjoy working with you through this first draft.

by **Wealthatonia** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:02 pm

We are against this, all minors informed of the dangers to them keep up their work and choose to keep working there day after day, we don't need this.

by **Marzicon** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:32 pm

Wealthatonia wrote:We are against this, all minors informed of the dangers to them keep up their work and choose to keep working there day after day, we don't need this.

But are they really? Most often, these miners are not well-educated. If they were, they wouldn't be in the mines. If they knew that the particles in these mines would cause respiratory issues that would shorten their lives by 20 years, I'd argue they wouldn't be down in the mines.

by **Araraukar** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:00 pm

OOC: Have you checked GA #263, Uranium Mining Standards? Both to avoid contradiction/duplication as well as for inspiration.

EDIT: Also, how is this a Human Rights proposal? Also, the wording "require the extraction of Earth-based substances" sounds like you were referring to the planet Earth that we in real life live on. And thus it could be counted as Real Life Reference. If you simply meant stuff extracted from the ground, just make the E a lowercase.

I'll probably rip it apart later for detailed feedback, but right now haven't got the time.

by **Covenstone** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:36 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Have you checked GA #263, Uranium Mining Standards? Both to avoid contradiction/duplication as well as for inspiration.

EDIT: Also, how is this a Human Rights proposal? Also, the wording "require the extraction of Earth-based substances" sounds like you were referring to the planet Earth that we in real life live on. And thus it could be counted as Real Life Reference. If you simply meant stuff extracted from the ground, just make the E a lowercase.

I'll probably rip it apart later for detailed feedback, but right now haven't got the time.

i'd maybe suggest changing "earth" for "ground" just to avoid any problems altogether. but - that aside - I kinda like this one. although if it is going to be about the people and not the act of mining (which is suggested by the Human Rights category choice) it might need a new title?

by **States of Glory WA Office** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:03 pm

Wealthatonia wrote:We are against this, all minors informed of the dangers to them keep up their work and choose to keep working there day after day, we don't need this.

Fairburn: Is that really how your nation treats working minors? You are aware of GA #4 a.k.a Restrictions on Child Labor, aren't you?

by **Wealthatonia** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:29 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
Wealthatonia wrote:We are against this, all minors informed of the dangers to them keep up their work and choose to keep working there day after day, we don't need this.

Fairburn: Is that really how your nation treats working minors? You are aware of GA #4 a.k.a Restrictions on Child Labor, aren't you?

Oops, thank you pointing out my typo, fairburn. I indeed meant miners

by **Marzicon** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:57 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Have you checked GA #263, Uranium Mining Standards? Both to avoid contradiction/duplication as well as for inspiration.

EDIT: Also, how is this a Human Rights proposal? Also, the wording "require the extraction of Earth-based substances" sounds like you were referring to the planet Earth that we in real life live on. And thus it could be counted as Real Life Reference. If you simply meant stuff extracted from the ground, just make the E a lowercase.

I'll probably rip it apart later for detailed feedback, but right now haven't got the time.

OOC: Thanks for your input, man. I've been researching these resolutions since Wednesday. Uranium mining caught my eye, and I did use it for inspiration, but I saw it as more of an environmental issue, not a Labor issue. Is there one?

by **Aclion** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:27 pm

"Excuse me, but we already have legislation keeping minors out of dangerous workplaces, so this is duplication."

by **Marzicon** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:38 pm

Aclion wrote:"Excuse me, but we already have legislation keeping minors out of dangerous workplaces, so this is duplication."

"Did you mean 'minors' as in Children, or 'miners' as in workers who extract substances from the ground?"

by **Aclion** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:45 pm

Marzicon wrote:
Aclion wrote:"Excuse me, but we already have legislation keeping minors out of dangerous workplaces, so this is duplication."

"Did you mean 'minors' as in Children, or 'miners' as in workers who extract substances from the ground?"

"I- oh..."

by **Marzicon** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:54 am

*nervously glances around the room*

"Look, I understand you all have your opinions on this topic. What do you guys think about the definitions? The safety standards? The committees?"

by **Bears Armed** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:08 am

OOC
Quick note: When you make significant changes to a draft proposal, the usual convention here is to

for comparison.

by **Marzicon** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:12 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Quick note: When you make significant changes to a draft proposal, the usual convention here is to
leave the previous versions in spoilers under the current version
for comparison.

Okay. And many thanks, this is a new forum for me so I'm still getting acclimated. I will make the necessary changes. Thank you, Bears.

by **Whovian Tardisia** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:17 pm

Marzicon wrote:*nervously glances around the room*

"Look, I understand you all have your opinions on this topic. What do you guys think about the definitions? The safety standards? The committees?"

Ambassador Pink, glancing at the draft, pipes up. "The definitions would be much easier to read if the defined words were distinguished from their definitions in some way; quotation marks would be easiest, but bold or italic text could be used as well." His robotic aide, K9, interjected: <Why not both?> "That too, but it's best not to get too flashy. I'm also irked that the committee acronym doesn't match it's name. I'd be drawn to WACMS or maybe even WACOMS. Wacoms. That's fun to say, too." He chuckled. "Oh, and one more thing:"

Marzicon wrote:
- Enact regulations to mandate deep-surface mining operations and open-pit mining operations to have proper ventilation systems and other measures placed in order to stabilize the air quality of the surrounding environment of non-atmospheric components to 5000 ppm

"That abbreviation may prove problematic, as there aren't standards for scientific terms WA wide. When I first looked at that, I thought it was a unit of pressure. It may be best to write 'parts per million' out fully to avoid such confusion."

by **Araraukar** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:07 pm

Whovian Tardisia wrote:"That abbreviation may prove problematic, as there aren't standards for scientific terms WA wide."

*cough*

by **Marzicon** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:25 pm

Araraukar wrote:*cough*

*looks back at the now-revised draft* Do these changes adequately address the nuances?

by **Marzicon** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:26 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Whovian Tardisia wrote:"That abbreviation may prove problematic, as there aren't standards for scientific terms WA wide."

*cough*

*Looks back at the changes, again, but with a nervous sweat running down* "He he. Looks like I didn't need to make the changes. It would still do good to at least specify what I'm talking about, since not everyone knows immediately what ppm is..."

by **Jarish Inyo** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:45 pm

Opposed. The Empire will not force companies to fill in mines on their property.

by **Marzicon** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:07 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:Opposed. The Empire will not force companies to fill in mines on their property.

*nervously glances at the intimidating delegate* "Hm... Perhaps if I added some clarification which specified that the mining company only has to do it if they leave the land, or would that not change your mind?"

by **Jarish Inyo** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:14 pm

Wouldn't change the Empire's stance. The land is private property, atleast in the Empire. What the company does with the land when they are done mining is their business. Not the WA's or any foreign nations.

by **Marzicon** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:15 pm

Jarish Inyo wrote:Wouldn't change the Empire's stance. The land is private property, atleast in the Empire. What the company does with the land when they are done mining is their business. Not the WA's or any foreign nations.

Completely understand.

by **Araraukar** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:35 pm

Marzicon wrote:
Araraukar wrote:*cough*

*looks back at the now-revised draft* Do these changes adequately address the nuances?

OOC: That was meant at Whovia, who claimed there wasn't such a system.

[DRAFT] Act for the Protection of Miners

[DRAFT] Act for the Protection of Miners

Who is online