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

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

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"

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

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."

[Hulldom]

The Hulldomian Ambassador looks the missive up and down and pauses for a moment before adjusting his glasses: “Support.”

[Fachumonn]

Oppose.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[The Orwell Society]

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.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

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

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

“*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).

[Imperium Anglorum]

“*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.

[Zerphen]

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.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

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.

[Zerphen]

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.

[Simone Republic]

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.