[draft] Ban Profits on Workers’ Deaths

[Sionis Prioratus]

[Social Justice / Mild]

APPALLED there are corporations & other employers alike that have bought life-insurance on their employees’ names, basically being more interested in their employees’ deaths than their actual well-being;

DEPLORING such a practice;

IT IS ESTABLISHED:

1) Corporations & other employers are henceforth banned from:

a) Secretly buying life-insurance in the name of their employees, and designate themselves as beneficiaries;
b) Giving financial and/or other incentives to employees in order for them to be placed as beneficiaries;
c) Firing, burdening and/or harassing employees for the sole reason said employees refuse to consent to be placed as beneficiaries;

2) Any & all existing policies are henceforth annulled, and any employees, present or former, targeted by such policies, have the right to have any and all personal documentation pertaining to participation in said policies fully disclosed;

3) Only a person has the liberty to buy a life insurance policy for oneself, and to designate as a beneficiary whoever or whatever institution said person wants. An exception is open for Chief Executive Officers & other employees who on account of unique talents, earn at least half the salary of the Chief Executive Officer.

[Social Justice / Mild]

APPALLED corporations and other employers alike have bought life insurance on their employees’ names, basically being more interested in their employees’ death than their actual well-being;

DEPLORING such a practice;

BANS corporations and other employers to buy life-insurance in the name of their employees, and designate themselves as beneficiaries;

ANNULS any existing schemes;

FURTHER CLARIFIES only a person should be able to buy a life insurance policy for oneself, and to designate as a beneficiary whoever or whatever institution said person wants, free of any outside pressure.

[Sanctaria]

Good, I like it, but I can see room for loopholes. What kind of "outside pressure"? It's too vague, perhaps adding something like

"BANS corporations and institutions from giving financial or other incentives to their workers in order for them to be placed as beneficiaries."

Or something less wordy.

Yours.,

[Franxico]

I have heard of this despicable practice and let me assure you that the Franxican State will support your efforts to see it outlawed.

Vicente Fernandez
Ambaixador Franxican a l'Assemblea Mundial

[Grays Harbor]

We have never heard of this practice, and wonder why international level legislation is required for something such as this.

[Embolalia]

First the tear-down, then the argument.

[Social Justice / Mild]
APPALLED corporations and other employers alike have bought life insurance on their employees’ names, basically being more interested in their employees’ death than their actual well-being;

On the employees, or in their names? Also, I think you might want to split the clause at that comma, and make another BELIEVING that the corporations are more interested etc.

DEPLORING such a practice;

Okay

BANS corporations and other employers to buy life-insurance in the name of their employees, and designate themselves as beneficiaries;

I would say "from buying" instead of "to buy", but that's minor grammar.

ANNULS any existing schemes;

I would use policies instead of schemes.

FURTHER CLARIFIES only a person should be able to buy a life insurance policy for oneself, and to designate as a beneficiary whoever or whatever institution said person wants, free of any outside pressure.

Ahrm. Hmm. This clause is a little tough. I don't object to the concept, per se, but it's really not what the resolution is about. Before, you were talking about banning the purchase of policies by employers, now you're banning it by anyone but the person in question. That would presumably preclude spouses, children, etc. You might consider replacing it with an affirmation of the right of an individual to take out, by his or herself, a policy on his or herself with any desired beneficiary, and to be free of coercion in that decision.
//--------------------
This is a tough one. I can certainly see where you're coming from on this. But to play devil's advocate for a second, what about the CEO of a major corporation? Let's call it Schmapple. Schmapple has a bit of a cult of personality around its CEO, Jeve Stobs. It's pretty much known that Stobs is the main creative force at Schmapple, and has really given the company its direction. If Stobs dies, Schmapple's stock prices will plummet. And that's even before they have to find someone who can give the company the innovative edge that has made it so successful. Is it reasonable for the company to have a policy against Mr. Stobs' life?
I'm not very familiar with the details of this practice. To be honest, I hadn't heard of it before now. (If you could provide some examples, even OOC, to give me some reference, that would help) It doesn't surprise me that this would happen, but I can even see a justification, as I stated above, even if I don't agree with it.

[Sionis Prioratus]

We have never heard of this practice, and wonder why international level legislation is required for something such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance

http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/

Now Your Excellency has heard about it. As for international justification, well, there are international corporations, we are sure Your Excellency has heard about those.

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

But to play devil's advocate for a second, what about the CEO of a major corporation? Let's call it Schmapple. Schmapple has a bit of a cult of personality around its CEO, Jeve Stobs. It's pretty much known that Stobs is the main creative force at Schmapple, and has really given the company its direction. If Stobs dies, Schmapple's stock prices will plummet. And that's even before they have to find someone who can give the company the innovative edge that has made it so successful. Is it reasonable for the company to have a policy against Mr. Stobs' life?

As for the company, no, it is not reasonable. However, if the head of the company, in this example Shmapple's CEO Jeve Stobs, in his individual capacity, actually cares for Schmapple and its employees, he - himself - will purchase a life insurance and designate in his own free will Schmapple as a beneficiary.

Yours truly,

[Grays Harbor]

We have never heard of this practice, and wonder why international level legislation is required for something such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance

http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/

Now Your Excellency has heard about it. As for international justification, well, there are international corporations, we are sure Your Excellency has heard about those.

Yours,

Yes, we have heard of international corporations, so the snideness is not required. *removes SP from diplomatic christmas card list* We also believe that just because there may well be international corporations, that is not sufficient reason to punish all corporations, domestic and international, because of the questionable practices of the very few.


(OOC: Why the spate of resolutions recently which seem little more than knee-jerk reactions to RW events and situations? Not just you, but they seem to be cropping up like mushrooms in the midden lately. I realize that there have always been these since "the beginning", it just seems that they are a much higher percentage now than they used to be.)

[American Capitalist]

We would support such an idea however wouldn't it be best to add a definition of Life Insurance and then ban Corporations from being the beneficiaries of life insurance policies?

[Sionis Prioratus]

*removes SP from diplomatic christmas card list*

Christmas? Last time we received a card from your Delegation it read: "Have a Happy Solstice Holiday, you Jewish bastards!"

We really liked it, and have it on display

[Embolalia]

We have never heard of this practice, and wonder why international level legislation is required for something such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance

http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/

Now Your Excellency has heard about it. As for international justification, well, there are international corporations, we are sure Your Excellency has heard about those.

Yours,

Yes, we have heard of international corporations, so the snideness is not required. *removes SP from diplomatic christmas card list* We also believe that just because there may well be international corporations, that is not sufficient reason to punish all corporations, domestic and international, because of the questionable practices of the very few.

I agree about the snideness. And I have to say, this is a bit sketchy on the international justification front. I can sort of see where there's reasonable moral ground, but I can also see an argument that it's just not a big enough problem. If the corporations are purposefully shortening the lives of their employees in order to get the payout, that's one thing. But unless that's happening, I'm gonna have to say no.

(OOC: Why the spate of resolutions recently which seem little more than knee-jerk reactions to RW events and situations? Not just you, but they seem to be cropping up like mushrooms in the midden lately. I realize that there have always been these since "the beginning", it just seems that they are a much higher percentage now than they used to be.)

Why the sudden spate of people constantly saying anything inspired by the real world is knee-jerk? Unless what you mean to say is that you think it's poorly written, in which case just say so.

[Grays Harbor]

*removes SP from diplomatic christmas card list*

Christmas? Last time we received a card from your Delegation it read: "Have a Happy Solstice Holiday, you Jewish bastards!"

We really liked it, and have it on display

If that is how your translators rendered the text, we believe they may require a more firm grounding in conversational harberian, as the text read:

Rydym yn dymuno gyd i fod yn dymor gwyliau hyfryd waeth beth yw eu cysylltiad crefyddol

We wish all to have a pleasant holiday season irregardless of their religious affiliation

[Sionis Prioratus]

I can sort of see where there's reasonable moral ground, but I can also see an argument that it's just not a big enough problem.

Your Excellency, that is the reason we have tentatively drafted this text as having a "Mild" strength. We are happy to have reached agreement that this is a problem, regardless of size.

Yours truly,

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think there's a reasonable moral imperative to ban profiting off of the death of employees. As for this proposal, I'm unsure why it's been presented in such an unfinished, skeletal form. There's not much to comment on, except the idea itself. It seems more a memo than a proposal. So, I'll reserve debate until the author fleshes the text out a bit.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Sionis Prioratus]

I think there's a reasonable moral imperative to ban profiting off of the death of employees. As for this proposal, I'm unsure why it's been presented in such an unfinished, skeletal form. There's not much to comment on, except the idea itself. It seems more a memo than a proposal. So, I'll reserve debate until the author fleshes the text out a bit.

Dr. Bradford William Castro

Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Your Excellency has put it properly; it is not a proposal - yet - it is a draft. Its evolution has just begun, we are in no hurry, we wish to hear all input in affirmation and in opposition and putative additions, which some Delegations have already offered, and we thank them.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

Your Excellency has put it properly; it is not a proposal - yet - it is a draft. Its evolution has just begun, we are in no hurry, we wish to hear all input in affirmation and in opposition and putative additions, which some Delegations have already offered, and we thank them.

First, I think it's important to mention what the proposal is banning. The term "corporate-owned life insurance" doesn't appear in the text. For that matter, life insurance should probably be defined.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Manticore Reborn]

The government of the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn applauds the intent of this legislation, but is unable to support it.

Corporate-owned life insurance can be instrumental in keeping a valuable company afloat after the unexpected death of key personnel. It can also be vital for some companies to be able to reduce the financial obligations to pension payouts, stock redemption and training personnel to take over for the unfortunately deceased person.

In addition, why should companies not do this? As long as the company is incurring the expense the only instance in which my government could see this as harmful is if the company then orchestrates the death of the employee insured. In which case they would be guilty of murder or, at the very least, in violation of Workplace Safety Standards Act.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

[Grays Harbor]

The government of the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn applauds the intent of this legislation, but is unable to support it.

Corporate-owned life insurance can be instrumental in keeping a valuable company afloat after the unexpected death of key personnel. It can also be vital for some companies to be able to reduce the financial obligations to pension payouts, stock redemption and training personnel to take over for the unfortunately deceased person.

In addition, why should companies not do this? As long as the company is incurring the expense the only instance in which my government could see this as harmful is if the company then orchestrates the death of the employee insured. In which case they would be guilty of murder or, at the very least, in violation of Workplace Safety Standards Act.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

The most likely answer would probably be "Because its a Corporation and we know they are all evil manipulators and greedy bastards!", or something to that effect.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The government of the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn applauds the intent of this legislation, but is unable to support it.

Corporate-owned life insurance can be instrumental in keeping a valuable company afloat after the unexpected death of key personnel. It can also be vital for some companies to be able to reduce the financial obligations to pension payouts, stock redemption and training personnel to take over for the unfortunately deceased person.

In addition, why should companies not do this? As long as the company is incurring the expense the only instance in which my government could see this as harmful is if the company then orchestrates the death of the employee insured. In which case they would be guilty of murder or, at the very least, in violation of Workplace Safety Standards Act.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

The most likely answer would probably be "Because its a Corporation and we know they are all evil manipulators and greedy bastards!", or something to that effect.

Not all corporations are bad to be honest.

As for the draft itself, maybe the scope is a bit too small. Not opposed, but I was thinking about a general charter on inheritance laws, incorporating what is said here. Just a thought here.

[Manticore Reborn]

The most likely answer would probably be "Because its a Corporation and we know they are all evil manipulators and greedy bastards!", or something to that effect.

The ambassador from Manticore Reborn chuckles and sends a note to the ambassador from Grays Harbor that the first round of drinks will be on him.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

The government of the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn applauds the intent of this legislation, but is unable to support it.

Corporate-owned life insurance can be instrumental in keeping a valuable company afloat after the unexpected death of key personnel. It can also be vital for some companies to be able to reduce the financial obligations to pension payouts, stock redemption and training personnel to take over for the unfortunately deceased person.

In addition, why should companies not do this? As long as the company is incurring the expense the only instance in which my government could see this as harmful is if the company then orchestrates the death of the employee insured. In which case they would be guilty of murder or, at the very least, in violation of Workplace Safety Standards Act.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

The most likely answer would probably be "Because its a Corporation and we know they are all evil manipulators and greedy bastards!", or something to that effect.

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

While our nation does not take such an extreme view of capitalist ethics, we note that the esteemed representative from Sionis Prioriatis has the kernel of a good proposal here, one that with some polish would make good legislation.

The issue being raised is whether the WA should concern itself with the problem of "moral hazard" in the insurance industry, specifically employee insurance. It is possible under certain situations, for example, for a corporation to have an employee that is more valuable to them dead than alive, thanks to a life insurance policy on that employee. In such a situation, the employee is at risk that the corporation will act in a way that increases danger to the employee's life, such as cutting corners in safety equipment. The creation of such "moral hazards" may be deemed an unethical business practice, and the question here becomes, are they a great enough concern that the WA should move to outlaw them?

[Manticore Reborn]

...It is possible under certain situations, for example, for a corporation to have an employee that is more valuable to them dead than alive, thanks to a life insurance policy on that employee. In such a situation, the employee is at risk that the corporation will act in a way that increases danger to the employee's life, such as cutting corners in safety equipment.

This ambassador would like to point out that intentionally creating an unsafe work environment would already been a violation of current WA Resolutions, specifically World Assembly Resolution #7 the Workplace Safety Standards Act.

The humble representative from the Kingdom of Manticore Reborn yields the floor.

[Ammador]

I'm not sure we can legislate something like this in the scope of international politics. Can we pass legislation on corporations? I mean idealistically, that would be fantastic, but can we really?

[The Eternal Kawaii]

...It is possible under certain situations, for example, for a corporation to have an employee that is more valuable to them dead than alive, thanks to a life insurance policy on that employee. In such a situation, the employee is at risk that the corporation will act in a way that increases danger to the employee's life, such as cutting corners in safety equipment.

This ambassador would like to point out that intentionally creating an unsafe work environment would already been a violation of current WA Resolutions, specifically World Assembly Resolution #7 the Workplace Safety Standards Act.

Point taken. The question then becomes, is there a "moral hazard" issue that needs to be addressed that isn't covered by Resolution #7?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not sure we can legislate something like this in the scope of international politics. Can we pass legislation on corporations? I mean idealistically, that would be fantastic, but can we really?

The limitation on what entities the World Assembly can and cannot regulate only exists in the realm of ideological politics, not any established rule. The World Assembly can, has, and will continue to create legislation regulating corporations.

Legislating on this matter is not a question of moral hazard or the Workplace Safety Standards Act. Even the most evil of corporations is unlikely to kill its workers to get a payout from a COLI policy. It's a question of ethics. Is it ethical for a corporation to take out secret whole-life insurance policies on its workers, so that the corporation benefits from those workers' deaths? Should the workers have knowledge of this insurance policies? Should they be able to decline permission? Should a corporation be able to fire or not employ a person based on their decision whether or not to allow the corporation to take out a life insurance policy on them? Those are the questions here.

In short, my answers are : no, yes, yes, no. Perhaps an outright ban on COLI policies is not needed, but the World Assembly has the authority and, in my opinion, the responsibility to ensure that corporations are not abusing their employees.

- Dr. B. Castro