[DRAFT] Repeal "Respondeat Superior"

[Nottinhaps]

The World Assembly,

NOTING that Respondeat Superior claims to benefit workers’ rights,

FURTHER NOTING that Clause 3 allows employers to sue employees,

UNDERSTANDING that companies can wield power over states by deciding to embargo any particular country for larger companies, or by emigration for smaller companies,

RECOGNISING that these powers can be used to coerce the legal system to create decisions that are desired by the employer,

SHOCKED that this resolution that “improves workers’ rights” in fact causes them to be unjustly fined by employers, such as during a union strike,

Hereby repeals Respondeat Superior.

Co-authored with Cedoria.

[Nottinhaps]

Would anybody be willing to give criticism to this?

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

I don't see anything about employers suing their employees in Clause 3. Elaborate.

[Nottinhaps]

In Clause 3, it states "An employer may seek indemnity from an employee". Indemnity means compensation for costs on them, and that would probably come in the form of requiring the employee to give the money to the employer. I guess that isn't necessarily suing, but it does mean the employee has to pay money to the employer.

If you think that the excessive legal jargon might be a reason that should be included, or that there should be some rewording, please tell me.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You're ignoring the rest of Clause 3, grossly misrepresenting my resolution."

[Groot]

"You're ignoring the rest of Clause 3, grossly misrepresenting my resolution."

"I am Groot," Groot nods in agreement as he gently pats Bell on the back.

[Kenmoria]

“I believe the repeal motion you present attacks only a rather unreasonable and unlikely interpretation of the target resolution. There are clauses in Respondeat Superior counteracting the arguments you present and, though the proposal looks nice and has good formatting, it is lacking in useful content.”

[Nottinhaps]

I understand that Clause 3 requires the employee's actions to be "reckless or intentional". But, again, the employer can use the above tactics to get in the way of the law system, or just get a better lawyer than the employee. Same goes into when you request claims to be "tried on its merits". I'm not ignoring the rest of Clause 3, but it does nothing to stop employers from constantly seeking indemnities.

[Separatist Peoples]

I understand that Clause 3 requires the employee's actions to be "reckless or intentional". But, again, the employer can use the above tactics to get in the way of the law system, or just get a better lawyer than the employee. Same goes into when you request claims to be "tried on its merits". I'm not ignoring the rest of Clause 3, but it does nothing to stop employers from constantly seeking indemnities.

"Whether something is reckless or intentional is not something that can be fabricated. Your argument is a misrepresentation of my resolution."

[Nottinhaps]

Well, if the employee is single, has very little friends and isn't a very good public speaker, the employer's words are pretty much the only viable source of information, and free to twist the truth. Fellow employees can serve as an eyewitness, employers can use a carrot-and-stick method to prevent them from talking about the truth, or their version of the truth may be distorted by the employer. Even if they do end up speaking the truth, the employer's lawyer could easily beat the employee's one.

Although, this problem of fabrication can easily be avoided by threats to the economy or bribery.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, if the employee is single, has very little friends and isn't a very good public speaker, the employer's words are pretty much the only viable source of information, and free to twist the truth. Fellow employees can serve as an eyewitness, employers can use a carrot-and-stick method to prevent them from talking about the truth, or their version of the truth may be distorted by the employer. Even if they do end up speaking the truth, the employer's lawyer could easily beat the employee's one.

Although, this problem of fabrication can easily be avoided by threats to the economy or bribery.

"That one party to a lawsuit might resort to illegal acts is not a failing of the law. Indeed. If your government is so inept as to allow wanton bribery, you clearly have bigger issues than my resolution.

"Eyewitnesses are bound by oath to tell the truth. Lying under oath is a crime. Anticipating national crimes is clearly outside the scope of this resolution, and such an argument us a disingenuous misrepresentation of my resolution. You are either arguing in bad faith or you misunderstand the resolution so badly as to have no idea how court cases work. Neither does you credit."

[Cedoria]

I understand that Clause 3 requires the employee's actions to be "reckless or intentional". But, again, the employer can use the above tactics to get in the way of the law system, or just get a better lawyer than the employee. Same goes into when you request claims to be "tried on its merits". I'm not ignoring the rest of Clause 3, but it does nothing to stop employers from constantly seeking indemnities.

"Whether something is reckless or intentional is not something that can be fabricated. Your argument is a misrepresentation of my resolution."

The question is one of definitions. Technically a workers strike for fair pay and conditions could be construed as 'reckless', and is definitely nothing but 'intentional'. The objection in this Repeal is that the wording is ambiguous to an extent that it leaves huge holes for employers to use disproportionate financial and political leverage to punish efforts by workers to gain fairer pay and conditions.

That's not a fabrication, it's a legitimate possibility for the legal judgements provided under the law. You wouldn't need to fabricate evidence or lie, you'd just need a legal system willing to accommodate the arguments of such employers. A resolution dedicated to empowering worker's rights should not have such obvious failings.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Whether something is reckless or intentional is not something that can be fabricated. Your argument is a misrepresentation of my resolution."

The question is one of definitions. Technically a workers strike for fair pay and conditions could be construed as 'reckless', and is definitely nothing but 'intentional'. The objection in this Repeal is that the wording is ambiguous to an extent that it leaves huge holes for employers to use disproportionate financial and political leverage to punish efforts by workers to gain fairer pay and conditions.

That's not a fabrication, it's a legitimate possibility for the legal judgements provided under the law. You wouldn't need to fabricate evidence or lie, you'd just need a legal system willing to accommodate the arguments of such employers. A resolution dedicated to empowering worker's rights should not have such obvious failings.

"None of that is a good faith interpretation as required by GAR#2. As such, I needn't address the obvious hyperbole, since it involves addressing an obviously illegal interpretation. Moreover, no member state would take such an obviously harmful approach to their own system, as it would destroy their domestic tort law by making...well, anything a civil wrong. Lets stick to reasonable interpretations."