NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Repeal GAR #607, titled "Health and Safety Act"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 312
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

[DRAFT] Repeal GAR #607, titled "Health and Safety Act"

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Thu May 26, 2022 10:09 am

Repeal GAR #607; titled "Health and Safety Act

~*~*~*~ Link to Target: GAR #607 ~*~*~*~


The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Agreeing that the General Assembly may legitimately meddle with Member Nations' industries and economic development programs to protect peoples' health and safety; but

Resolved that any such meddling must only impose fair and proper standards;

Turning to GAR #607, titled "Health and Safety Act," Part 1(a), and seeing that it focuses on developing tolerance standards for "mechanical, temperature, chemical, and ergonomic stresses" that "a worker in that member state may endure on a daily basis;"

Turning to GAR #607 Part 2(a), and seeing that it focuses on developing tolerance standards for "levels of various industrial chemical substances" in the workplace and in the worker's blood stream that "a worker in that member state may endure on a daily basis;"

Realizing that such a focus is wrong because it allows exposing workers to extremely harsh stresses and noxious chemicals right up to the breaking point, so long as the exposure does not exceed what a worker 'may endure.'

Recognizing that particular individuals have their own particular tolerances for external stresses and chemical exposure (not to mention internal exposures in their blood stream) which are related to their unique characteristics;

Recognizing that particular individuals may be especially vulnerable to stresses and chemical exposure, which GAR #607's overgeneralized 'what-a-worker-may-endure' standard does not accommodate;

Convinced that any legitimate effort to deal with workplace stress and chemical exposure needs to be built around a concept of recognizing and accommodating individual needs, not focused on generalized one-size-fits-all standards;

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby REPEALS GAR #607, the resolution titled "Health and Safety Act"
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Thu May 26, 2022 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 312
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Thu May 26, 2022 10:11 am

I may be inclined to never submit this, for posterity sake, if I am satisfied that no other resolution has ever earned passage with a slimmer margin.

Otherwise, please enjoy this critique of the recently passed "Health and Safety Act."

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Thu May 26, 2022 10:36 am

The Hulldomian Ambassador looks the missive up and down and pauses for a moment before adjusting his glasses: “Support.”
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Thu May 26, 2022 11:01 am

Oppose.


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11477
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu May 26, 2022 4:29 pm

C Marcius Blythe. We support.

OOC. From a GA gameplay perspective, I also think that sort of resolution which the target seems to fall in (ie "make a committee and task it or just task nations to figure it out") are, on balance, bad for the game. This isn't an indefeasible belief, but in general, it seems that those proposals are both lazy and offer little meaningful room for engagement. We ought to want engagement in the Assembly and have it at least somewhat detailed. That something is done in real life – RL legislatures regularly create agencies that have broad statutory powers to create secondary legislation – is not a sufficient justification. Otherwise, people may as well follow the reductio ad absurdum of committee perfection: hand everything over to the technocrats.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Thu May 26, 2022 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
The Orwell Society
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1270
Founded: Apr 16, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Orwell Society » Thu May 26, 2022 4:55 pm

Support. I saw no reason to repeal the target resolution, but now I do. It is a premies of minor importance, but significant enough to make a good repeal.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

A totalitarian, socialist, fascist society ruled by a ruthless dictator known as Big Brother, the First Triumvir Donovan Xavier. The omnipresent and endlessly oppressive government is made up of four ministries: The Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Peace, and the Ministry of Surplus.

Takes up present-day Russia, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

Big Brother is watching you…

NEWS: 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

I am a 15 year old weirdo living in the United States. I like politics, reading, and goofing off. Aspiring WA author.

Bendicion wrote:This is America. The only thing that changes is the gas prices. And it's changing for the worse.

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 218
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Thu May 26, 2022 5:40 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Realizing that such a focus is wrong because it allows exposing workers to extremely harsh stresses and noxious chemicals right up to the breaking point, so long as the exposure does not exceed what a worker 'may endure.'


“*points to the specific clause* Ambassador, I agree with most of the repeal except for this clause. This interpretation of the focus is overly assumptive and subjective, as the author of the target resolution indicates no intentions of allowing companies to use the breaking point to expose their workers up until the limit. Rather, it seems that the limits were set up as warnings to limit the exposure of workers to toxic chemicals as much as possible.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Diplomat
 
Posts: 524
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Thu May 26, 2022 8:26 pm

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“*points to the specific clause* Ambassador, I agree with most of the repeal except for this clause. This interpretation of the focus is overly assumptive and subjective, as the author of the target resolution indicates no intentions of allowing companies to use the breaking point to expose their workers up until the limit. Rather, it seems that the limits were set up as warnings to limit the exposure of workers to toxic chemicals as much as possible.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire


Ambassador, you have a startling failure to grasp to concepts of textualist statutory interpretation. Whatever nebulous intent the original author may or may not have had is irrelevant. The text does precisely what it says. Article 1.f only requires the imposition of sanctions if exposure exceeds the published limits. Therefore the resolution permits exposing workers up to that point, which might be fairly called the breaking point. Or in simple terms if the manual says you can endure 200 sieverts of radiation per day, and your employer exposes you to exactly 200 sieverts of radiation, the target resolution has not been violated (that any remotely sane government would set a lower limit is neither here nor there for this purpose).
N’oubliez pas l’hospitalité car, grâce à elle, certains, sans le savoir, ont accueilli des anges.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11477
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu May 26, 2022 8:36 pm

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“*points to the specific clause* Ambassador, I agree with most of the repeal except for this clause. This interpretation of the focus is overly assumptive and subjective, as the author of the target resolution indicates no intentions of allowing companies to use the breaking point to expose their workers up until the limit. Rather, it seems that the limits were set up as warnings to limit the exposure of workers to toxic chemicals as much as possible.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Ambassador, you have a startling failure to grasp to concepts of textualist statutory interpretation. Whatever nebulous intent the original author may or may not have had is irrelevant. The text does precisely what it says. Article 1.f only requires the imposition of sanctions if exposure exceeds the published limits. Therefore the resolution permits exposing workers up to that point, which might be fairly called the breaking point. Or in simple terms if the manual says you can endure 200 sieverts of radiation per day, and your employer exposes you to exactly 200 sieverts of radiation, the target resolution has not been violated (that any remotely sane government would set a lower limit is neither here nor there for this purpose).

If an honest mistake challenge were raised on this matter, I would take D&B's position.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Zerphen
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Mar 15, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zerphen » Thu May 26, 2022 9:27 pm

I think the omission of the "without incurring adverse side effects over time" part of the original resolution is pretty disingenuous here. This text implies to me that a worker could be exposed to some chemical as part of their job and develop skin cancer as a result 5 years later and that would be legal per the resolution, but that is not what the resolution does. The original resolution would permit a limit to the exposure of this chemical where the worker would have no effect long term. This resolution does allow member nations to edge on that limit of how much a worker could be exposed to some stressor, but I don't think that alone is enough of a reason to repeal this resolution.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 312
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri May 27, 2022 10:28 am

Zerphen wrote:I think the omission of the "without incurring adverse side effects over time" part of the original resolution is pretty disingenuous here. This text implies to me that a worker could be exposed to some chemical as part of their job and develop skin cancer as a result 5 years later and that would be legal per the resolution, but that is not what the resolution does. The original resolution would permit a limit to the exposure of this chemical where the worker would have no effect long term. This resolution does allow member nations to edge on that limit of how much a worker could be exposed to some stressor, but I don't think that alone is enough of a reason to repeal this resolution.

I have to respectfully disagree. Everything occurs "over time." The proposal's language on that is just fluff filler, so omitting it is not disingenuous. If a person is required to work in a vat of acid which dissolves their bones over a period of minutes, or is exposed to little bits of acid every day that eventually dissolves their bones five years later, either way they have been exposed to more than they can endure on a daily basis without "incurring adverse side effects over time". In fact, I think I overquoted - I only really needed to quote the part about "may endure" to make my point and show where the problems start.

Btw, the resolution does exactly what I imply: it directs an agency to discover and set limits on daily exposures to avoid the development of adverse effects (again, "over time" is just a meaningless fluff standard).

As others have pointed out, pursuing legislation in this way is not ideal. Tasking a committee to go investigate something or learn something so the WA can take further action is legitimate. I can get behind establishing a committee to help investigate the causes of work-related morbidities. But tasking a committee to just solve the problem for us is bad legislation. Why not just create the WA Miracle Committee, task it with making every job in every nation perfectly safe, and sit back and relax?

Legislation actually proposing methods to make acid handling more safe (i.e. ventilation requirements, protective equipment, health monitoring, access to emergency care, etc.) would show thought and initiative. Telling a committee to go do it for us is, well, lazy.
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Fri May 27, 2022 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zerphen
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Mar 15, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zerphen » Fri May 27, 2022 3:12 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Zerphen wrote:I think the omission of the "without incurring adverse side effects over time" part of the original resolution is pretty disingenuous here. This text implies to me that a worker could be exposed to some chemical as part of their job and develop skin cancer as a result 5 years later and that would be legal per the resolution, but that is not what the resolution does. The original resolution would permit a limit to the exposure of this chemical where the worker would have no effect long term. This resolution does allow member nations to edge on that limit of how much a worker could be exposed to some stressor, but I don't think that alone is enough of a reason to repeal this resolution.

I have to respectfully disagree. Everything occurs "over time." The proposal's language on that is just fluff filler, so omitting it is not disingenuous. If a person is required to work in a vat of acid which dissolves their bones over a period of minutes, or is exposed to little bits of acid every day that eventually dissolves their bones five years later, either way they have been exposed to more than they can endure on a daily basis without "incurring adverse side effects over time". In fact, I think I overquoted - I only really needed to quote the part about "may endure" to make my point and show where the problems start.

Btw, the resolution does exactly what I imply: it directs an agency to discover and set limits on daily exposures to avoid the development of adverse effects (again, "over time" is just a meaningless fluff standard).

As others have pointed out, pursuing legislation in this way is not ideal. Tasking a committee to go investigate something or learn something so the WA can take further action is legitimate. I can get behind establishing a committee to help investigate the causes of work-related morbidities. But tasking a committee to just solve the problem for us is bad legislation. Why not just create the WA Miracle Committee, task it with making every job in every nation perfectly safe, and sit back and relax?

Legislation actually proposing methods to make acid handling more safe (i.e. ventilation requirements, protective equipment, health monitoring, access to emergency care, etc.) would show thought and initiative. Telling a committee to go do it for us is, well, lazy.

I can see what you mean with it being fluff language, but in my interpretation of the resolution I feel that extra bit changes how the resolution should be enforced. I definitely feel that "endure" and "adverse effects" are pretty vague statements that can lead to different interpretations. If this were to be repealed and rewritten it should define these terms so there is no confusion. I will restate that I don't think this alone is enough of a reason to repeal this resolution and I think there should be more.

You say that legislating by making committees to do all the work is lazy, and I do agree with that. I think you should write more in this repeal to make that argument, since that seems to me like the best argument for repeal. The only line that hints at that argument is the last one, and I don't think that is near enough to make an argument about this kind of legislation being lazy.

Two nitpicks that I have that aren't related to the ideas behind this repeal: When you refer to lines in the resolution you use Part 1(a) and Part 2(a). That seems like it refers to a different part of the resolution entirely, and I think you meant 1(a) and 1(b). I also think using "Now, therefore," is a bit clunky at the end and it would be better to just remove that part.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Secretary
 
Posts: 33
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:25 am

To reiterate from the IFV for TNP when this Resolution passed:

"[We] have several serious issues with [what is now GA#607], which, despite its name, does not seriously promote health and safety. Instead it requires compiling guidelines that should already be available in any sensible workplace in a nation with a well developed government, especially if the work is inherently dangerous. Furthermore, the compilation of workplace injury statistics, and the wide range of workplace safety laws, appear to serve no particular purpose in terms of improving multiversal governance. We thus end up with another layer of bureaucracy within the WA that compiles health and safety advice and statistics, largely duplicating similar functions often carriet out at national (or sometimes provincial/local) government levels, with no discernable effects on either the health or safety of workers.


Having said that, I am not in the "quick repeal" camp (even though I fought against this on TNP) so would hesitate to try to overturn it at this juncture.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads