NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING the absence of UN legislation guaranteeing the safety of workers while in the workplace;

RESOLVED to establish a common standard of workplace safety in all UN nations;

BELIEVING that employees have the right to safe working conditions while at the workplace and that employers have a responsibility to provide a healthy and safe work environment;

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons
- an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation
- a workplace as any site at which the tasks employees are engaged to perform are carried out
- an employer as a person or persons engaging employees to perform certain tasks, excluding the law enforcement and military bodies of UN member nations;

the United Nations hereby,

ENACTS the following:

(1)Each employer shall make every reasonable effort to furnish a place of employment which is free from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm to his employees and inform workers as fully as possible of potential hazards.

(2)Workplaces must be maintained in such a condition that workers will not be exposed to excessive danger.

(3)Every employer must ensure that regular inspections are made of all workplaces and work methods and practices, at intervals that will prevent the development of unsafe working conditions.

(4)Employers shall, where applicable, inform employees of any Personal Protective Equipment required. The minimum standard of PPE is that which will prevent injury or harm to the worker considering all known or anticipated hazards within the specific workplace. All workers must provide or be provided with, and be required to use, the minimum standard of PPE. Employers shall also provide formal training in the use of PPE and in safe operational procedures for all employees, plus updates whenever significant new procedures are introduced.

(5)The employer must ensure that each tool, machine and piece of equipment in the workplace is capable of safely performing the functions for which it is used and operated.

(6)Employers shall ensure that each employee complies with all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to the employee's own actions and conduct.

(7)Employers must not knowingly permit employees to enter or remain at the workplace while the employee's ability to work safely is so notably impaired as to endanger the employee and/or anyone else, or diminish their ability to operate machinery safely.

(8)Employers shall ensure that employees do not engage in any inappropriate activity or behavior at a workplace that might create or constitute a hazard to themselves or to any other person.

(9)All UN member nations are encouraged to enact workplace safety legislation at the national level that would further expand on the concepts embodied within this act. Nothing in this legislation shall be taken as forcing or inducing nations to lower existing national standards of workplace safety.

(10)Each UN member nation shall ensure that within it there exist one or more adequately funded governmental bodies that can inspect work sites and ensure compliance with this act throughout its territory.

Co-Authored by UNOG
I ran this through the proposal list recently. It recieved 50+ approvals without a TG campaign. I'll be submitting it for real this weekend (late Sunday/early Monday). Category is Social Justice, I'm thinking "significant", possibly "strong". Comments?

I ran this through the proposal list recently. It recieved 50+ approvals without a TG campaign. I'll be submitting it for real this weekend (late Sunday/early Monday). Category is Social Justice, I'm thinking "significant", possibly "strong". Comments?


Does not define 'workers' or 'workplace': What about the armed forces?

Does not define 'workers' or 'workplace': What about the armed forces?

Bad post, man, bad post. You need to read it again. It does define workplace, and it does exclude armed forces. You (accidentally) make a good point with worker. The words "worker" and "employee" are used interchangeably throughout. Since only one of those is defined, the other should be eliminated.

(2)Workplaces must be maintained in such a condition that workers will not be exposed to excessive danger.

(3)Every employer must ensure that regular inspections are made of all workplaces and work methods and practices, at intervals that will prevent the development of unsafe working conditions.What about jobs that are, by definition, dangerous and unsafe?

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.How is this Social Justice?

What about jobs that are, by definition, dangerous and unsafe?

I believe this proposal leaves it to nations to decide on which kind of risks are "acceptable" and on the liability of employers for those risks:

(1)Each employer shall make every reasonable effort to furnish a place of employment which is free from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm to his employees and inform workers as fully as possible of potential hazards.

(2)Workplaces must be maintained in such a condition that workers will not be exposed to excessive danger.
(emphasis mine)

Some would say it makes the proposal toothless. I personally like it, since it gives a general principle to nations, yet allows them to adapt it to their own level of development. Anything more specific would either be too restrictive (eg banning circus acrobats), or lead us to the eternal old tech/new tech debate.

How is this Social Justice?

I am no expert in UN categories, but I would argue that safety at work increases basic welfare. As in "protects poor, innocent factory workers from evil capitalist pigs, aka bosses." ;)

I believe this proposal leaves it to nations to decide on which kind of risks are "acceptable" and on the liability of employers for those risks:


(emphasis mine)

Some would say it makes the proposal toothless. I personally like it, since it gives a general principle to nations, yet allows them to adapt it to their own level of development. Anything more specific would either be too restrictive (eg banning circus acrobats), or lead us to the eternal old tech/new tech debate.


It still requires them to make an effort, however. What if there was no way to make an effort?

It still requires them to make an effort, however. What if there was no way to make an effort?

I am not sure I understand your question. What are the activities where it is impossible to make a reasonable effort to eliminate risks?

What about jobs that are, by definition, dangerous and unsafe?

The employers are required to make them less dangerous and less unsafe.

Mining is inherently dangerous. Geological studies can make it safer. So can hard hats, reasonable shifts, safe lighting, well-designed props, rostered breaks, temperature limits, automatic drills, pit inspections, safety exercises, workable shaft dimensions, buddy systems ...

All these things didn't come in all at once. In some cases they were won from employers by active unions. In others they were introduced by employers to improve production or forced on the entire industry by reforming governments. Making a workplace safer is a continuous process, but not a smooth progression. It happens in fits and starts.

Yelda's proposal doesn't insist employers constantly improve the workplace. What they are obliged to do is keep it as safe as they can, given the limits of existing knowledge. They're not allowed to backslide to less safe conditions, and when new ways of making the job safer are discovered, they're obliged to introduce whatever improvements they can achieve in that particular workplace. That's how I read (1) and (2), anyway.

As to category, I don't know enough to advise, but I took it that the line about 'right to safe working conditions' implied that this was a matter of basic welfare.

How is this Social Justice?
Workers' rights would seem to me to fall within the term 'basic welfare'.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Workers' rights would seem to me to fall within the term 'basic welfare'.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10302115&postcount=83

a massive step backwards for workers'- nay, human rights.

I'm not sure, personally, but this seems something of a flip-flop.

I'm not sure, personally, but this seems something of a flip-flop.

I have the impression that Mr Vergniaud is often over-enthusiastic in his rhetorical freedoms.

Bad post, man, bad post. You need to read it again. It does define workplace, and it does exclude armed forces. You (accidentally) make a good point with worker. The words "worker" and "employee" are used interchangeably throughout. Since only one of those is defined, the other should be eliminated.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons
- an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation
- a workplace as any site at which the tasks employees are engaged to perform are carried out
- an employer as a person or persons engaging employees to perform certain tasks, excluding the law enforcement and military bodies of UN member nations;

Okay, I admit that I missed the exclusion for military & police personnel: It was almost the end of my tea-break & I was in a bit of a hurry... but if that exclusion wasn't there then I don't see why that definition of 'workplace' would exclude battlefields...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10302115&postcount=83



I'm not sure, personally, but this seems something of a flip-flop.
I was merely pointing out here a justification for the categorising of this repeal. Either would seem to me to be appropriate. No 'flip-flop'.

MV

I have the impression that Mr Vergniaud is often over-enthusiastic in his rhetorical freedoms.
OOC: Damn straight! NS needs a fourth axis. The People's Republic of Vergniaud would be a Scandinavian Rhetorical Paradise, perhaps...

No prizes but transient kudos for anyone who knows why my deputy is called 'Vergniaud'...

I was merely pointing out here a justification for the categorising of this repeal. Either would seem to me to be appropriate. No 'flip-flop'.
Right. But this doesn't affect 'income equality'.

OOC: Damn straight! NS needs a fourth axis. The People's Republic of Vergniaud would be a Scandinavian Rhetorical Paradise, perhaps...

No prizes but transient kudos for anyone who knows why my deputy is called 'Vergniaud'...
OOC:

French Revolutionary chap.

IC: Incidentally, we have seen a lot of Mr Vernigaud lately. I hope all that polyandry hasn't unduly tired out Ms Yiffamova.

Right. But this doesn't affect 'income equality'.


OOC:

French Revolutionary chap.

IC: Incidentally, we have seen a lot of Mr Vernigaud lately. I hope all that polyandry hasn't unduly tired out Ms Yiffamova.
OOC: Transient kudos to you, sir...

Er, Ms Yefremova left her position as Speaker to the UN on 23/12/05 when she was elected to a higher position in the Ecopoeia govt. The new Speaker is Lata Chakrabarti, but I haven't got round to using her yet. Let's just assume she hasn't yet started her new post.

There was a farewell announcement in the Strangers' Bar.

Regarding categorisation, one could argue either way? Does it mean that a resolution has to both increase income equality and basic welfare, or does it more generally include resolutions that do either or both? Hmm... almost certainly the former, in fairness. It just seems appropriate for Social Justice. Meh, whatever.

What about jobs that are, by definition, dangerous and unsafe?
The interpretations of "excessive danger" and "unsafe working conditions" would vary from one workplace to another. In a coal mine or oil refinery it might mean "things exploding more often than they should". In a warehouse or office environment the bar would be much higher than that I imagine. In article (10) that determination is left up to regulatory bodies in the individual nations.

How is this Social Justice?
I've wavered on which category to use for this. It would increase basic welfare, but it would have no effect on income inequality. The reason I went with "social justice" is that article (10) would force nations to spend money enforcing it (unless they already have some sort of regulatory body).
I would have no problem submitting it as "human rights" if you think that would be more appropriate.

The words "worker" and "employee" are used interchangeably throughout. Since only one of those is defined, the other should be eliminated.
I guess I'll need to define "worker" then, because if you substitute "employee" in the places where it says "worker" it sounds silly.

How about I change the definition of "employee" to this:
- an employee as an individual worker who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation
Better?

The word "worker" is unnecessary. Just thinking of your character count. ;)

The word "worker" is unnecessary. Just thinking of your character count. ;)
The character count is close, but I think it will still be under.
I don't want to remove all instances of the word "worker" from the text and replace them with "employee". I also don't want to include a separate definition of "worker". I'm not going to embark on the "define every single term in the proposal" road. By defining "employee" in this way it establishes that "employee" = "worker".

All I meant was "an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation" says the same thing.

All I meant was "an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation" says the same thing.
Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to get away from having to define "worker".

I am not sure I understand your question. What are the activities where it is impossible to make a reasonable effort to eliminate risks?

Gladiatorial combat?

How about I change the definition of "employee" to this:

- an employee as an individual worker who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation

Better?

So anybody who works for a government, a corporation or an organisation of another kind, rather than just for another person, wouldn't be protected under this resolution?

Gladiatorial combat?
Oh, and voluntary human sacrifices too! Well hell, I'll just scrap the whole thing now. Thanks for bringing this up! :)

What about situations where the employer doesn't actually control the "workplace"? For example, the "workplace" for a motorcycle courier is presumably the road system...

So anybody who works for a government, a corporation or an organisation of another kind, rather than just for another person, wouldn't be protected under this resolution?
Have you seen this?
DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons

Gladiatorial combat?

Yeah, this resolution does disapprove of death fights. As in boxing, you would have to make a reasonable effort for the damage to be transitory. If you enjoy death fights in St Edmund, you can either vote against, or work around it by calling them a military exercise.

What about situations where the employer doesn't actually control the "workplace"? For example, the "workplace" for a motorcycle courier is presumably the road system...
The motorcycle itself would have to be in safe working condition. The courier would be issued a helmet and required to wear it.

Have you seen this?
DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons


(OOC: Oops! I just haven't been getting enough sleep lately...)

Yeah, this resolution does disapprove of death fights. As in boxing, you would have to make a reasonable effort for the damage to be transitory. If you enjoy death fights in St Edmund, you can either vote against, or work around it by calling them a military exercise.

Oh, we don't have them, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that some other nation -- perhaps one with a 'Roman' basis -- did...

Okay, I admit that I missed the exclusion for military & police personnel: It was almost the end of my tea-break & I was in a bit of a hurry... but if that exclusion wasn't there then I don't see why that definition of 'workplace' would exclude battlefields...
I dont really see how any legislation can be applied in "The Battle Field" where the very reason a "Worker" is there is to Kill or maim an opposing "Worker".

Picture the scene......
Battlefield worker 1: Bang Bang (Gunfire)
BFW2 : Ouch! Hey Thats just not cricket! Under article 2 section 4 of the Blah blah Resolution you are required not to shoot me in he head. It is much safer for me if you aimed for my thigh!
BFW1: Terribly sorry old Chap. Bang bang (gunfire)
BFW2: Ouch! Much Better!

VL.

Hm. Spinning from "reduce income inequality", I always took welfare to mean "monies given by the government to people who don't have enough", not "the general health and wellbeing of a person".

In other words: money, not pep talks.

"Human Rights" it is then. Strength "significant"?

Hm. Spinning from "reduce income inequality", I always took welfare to mean "monies given by the government to people who don't have enough", not "the general health and wellbeing of a person".

In other words: money, not pep talks.

Spinning from "reduce income inequality," I can certainly see that interpretation, but when the term "general welfare" is used, it does typically mean "the general well-being of people."

Spinning from "reduce income inequality," I can certainly see that interpretation, but when the term "general welfare" is used, it does typically mean "the general well-being of people."

The term used is "basic welfare." The economic concept of welfare is linked to aggregate utility, so would include this proposal. The social policy use of the concept is what Hack said. The common sense use is what you said. All are correct in their context, no strong arguments for either, disambiguation was provided. Let's move on.

The Commonalitarianism, limits the working rights of certain classes of criminals multiple murderers, serial rapists, and other violent offenders reserves the right to subject such classes to hard labor. Said hard labor shall not be for profit, but shall specifically support government infrastructure-- roads, toxic cleanup, etc. Some claim hard labor is a form of slavery or bonding to the state. Hard labor is a form of forced extreme working
conditions. All of said safety requirements could be met, however hard labor by its nature and who the prisoners would be working with would be dangerous. Whether or not prison is a form of slavery is another issue. How does the Worker Rights Act cover prison and specifically hard labor.

The Commonalitarianism, repeals the working rights of certain classes of criminals multiple murderers, serial rapists, military traitors, and reserves the right to subject such classes to a lifetime of dangerous hard labor-- toxic clean up, ocean fire extinguishing, deep sea mining, etc. We ask that high security and violent criminals not be given these rights.
How is that legal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5)?

I ran this through the proposal list recently. It recieved 50+ approvals without a TG campaign. I'll be submitting it for real this weekend (late Sunday/early Monday). Category is Social Justice, I'm thinking "significant", possibly "strong". Comments?

50 Delegate endorsements without any telegram campaign is excellent!

I agree that this is a Social Justice resolution, though I think you could justify either significant or strong depending upon how strongly you plan to advocate "reasonable" is, given it comes up several times in the proposal. I tend to prefer weaker resolutions and admit that resolutions are mere recommendations, thus leaving "strong" for only the most extreme resolutions (thus I'd encourage you to use "significant").

If people complain about "stat wanking", I fully intent to move forward with the Fair Trade of Alcoholic Beverages proposal, which would be opposite of this in the "mild" category. Meaning it would be fair to advocate that the two resolutions together will somewhat cancel each other out. :)

How is this Social Justice?

By Cogitation's old definitions ... anything that places greater restrictions on the economic "axis" of our nations is Social Justice, the opposite category is "Free Trade".

This is a classic example of social justice.

Given that there are nearly 142 resolutions, including repeals, and over 1/3 of these are human rights, I'd rather not continue to corrupt the abuse of *that* category ... because frankly everything can be said to justified because it is a "fundamental human right".

Here is the link to Cog's expanded notes on the resolution categories ...
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5224569&postcount=1

From that post:

[Free Trade and Social Justice] are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. In addition, "Social Justice" also increases government spending on welfare and healthcare (though "Free Trade" does not have an opposite effect). Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all UN member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all UN member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.


I'm not sure how many of these were adopted when the UN rule sets were changed in 2005 (I'll look to see if things are described differently).

And while the examples talk about government spending for the poor they also specifically talk about simple government regulations on the private sector as being Free Trade / Social Justice issues. Increased taxes on small businesses for example, could result in state revenues that are spend on many things (not just the poor), but since they'd target small businesses, they'd be a regulation on "trade", and I'd argue "Social Justice" in nature.

I'm waiting for a final ruling on the category, but I tend to agree with Hack that this isn't "Social Justice". The Rules for UN Proposals define "Social Justice" thus:
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
This one does not address income inequality at all. I think it's "Human Rights".

I'm waiting for a final ruling on the category, but I tend to agree with Hack that this isn't "Social Justice". The Rules for UN Proposals define "Social Justice" thus:

This one does not address income inequality at all. I think it's "Human Rights".

Well if you're happy with the ruling (he hinted twice -- so it is probably OK to submit it), since he is a moderator and I am not, go with Human Rights. I tried hunting him down to double check tonight, but he wasn't on IRC when I got on. I personally think that Human Rights can fit as well, so no harm done from my POV. :)

I still think it is a good proposal.

- an employee as an individual worker who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation

The character count is close, but I think it will still be under.
I don't want to remove all instances of the word "worker" from the text and replace them with "employee". I also don't want to include a separate definition of "worker". I'm not going to embark on the "define every single term in the proposal" road. By defining "employee" in this way it establishes that "employee" = "worker".

Sorry this is quite late (didn't get to the computer for a couple of days) but I don't think this does establish worker=employee. Technically, it leaves worker undefined, whilst defining employees as a subset of workers "who perform certain tasks...".

I tried replacing all instances of "worker" with "employee" and don't see what's wrong with it (actually I think it's helpful because it clearly ties the responsibility of employers to those specific workers that they employee), but if you don't want to do that, I'd advise making the definition say this:

- an employee or worker as an individual who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation

This clearly does establish that "worker" = "employee".

I tried replacing all instances of "worker" with "employee" and don't see what's wrong with it (actually I think it's helpful because it clearly ties the responsibility of employers to those specific workers that they employee)
You're right. Now that I see it in print, it doesn't look bad.
NOTING the absence of UN legislation guaranteeing the safety of employees while in the workplace;

RESOLVED to establish a common standard of workplace safety in all UN nations;

BELIEVING that employees have the right to safe working conditions while at the workplace and that employers have a responsibility to provide a healthy and safe work environment;

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons
- an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for another person in return for financial or other compensation
- a workplace as any site at which the tasks employees are engaged to perform are carried out
- an employer as a person or persons engaging employees to perform certain tasks, excluding the law enforcement and military bodies of UN member nations;

the United Nations hereby,

ENACTS the following:

(1)Each employer shall make every reasonable effort to furnish a place of employment which is free from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm to his employees and inform employees as fully as possible of potential hazards.

(2)Workplaces must be maintained in such a condition that employees will not be exposed to excessive danger.

(3)Every employer must ensure that regular inspections are made of all workplaces and work methods and practices, at intervals that will prevent the development of unsafe working conditions.

(4)Employers shall, where applicable, inform employees of any Personal Protective Equipment required. The minimum standard of PPE is that which will prevent injury or harm to the employee considering all known or anticipated hazards within the specific workplace. All employees must provide or be provided with, and be required to use, the minimum standard of PPE. Employers shall also provide formal training in the use of PPE and in safe operational procedures for all employees, plus updates whenever significant new procedures are introduced.

(5)The employer must ensure that each tool, machine and piece of equipment in the workplace is capable of safely performing the functions for which it is used and operated.

(6)Employers shall ensure that each employee complies with all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to the employee's own actions and conduct.

(7)Employers must not knowingly permit employees to enter or remain at the workplace while the employee's ability to work safely is so notably impaired as to endanger the employee and/or anyone else, or diminish their ability to operate machinery safely.

(8)Employers shall ensure that employees do not engage in any inappropriate activity or behavior at a workplace that might create or constitute a hazard to themselves or to any other person.

(9)All UN member nations are encouraged to enact workplace safety legislation at the national level that would further expand on the concepts embodied within this act. Nothing in this legislation shall be taken as forcing or inducing nations to lower existing national standards of workplace safety.

(10)Each UN member nation shall ensure that within it there exist one or more adequately funded governmental bodies that can inspect work sites and ensure compliance with this act throughout its territory.

Co-Authored by UNOG
If there are no objections, this will be the final draft. Human Rights, Significant?

Did some digging on something else and turned up the UN category cheatsheet. Go with Human Rights; it's not a particularly swell fit, but it's definately closer than Social Justice. Remember, the burden for these ajustments are on the employers, not the government.

Definitely Significant.

You're right. Now that I see it in print, it doesn't look bad.

If there are no objections, this will be the final draft. Human Rights, Significant?

Pedantic point:

Your definition can be interpreted in a way that makes soldiers employees, even though the military hierarchy is not an employer. As such, clause (2) would still apply to the military, since it makes no reference to an employer.

I suggest rephrasing the definitions to:

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons
- an employer as a person or persons engaging one or more individuals to perform certain tasks, excluding the law enforcement and military bodies of UN member nations
- an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for an employer in return for financial or other compensation
- a workplace as any site at which the tasks employees are engaged to perform are carried out;

We are always happy with significant human rights. :)

Submitted. The TG's are flyin'!

Pedantic point:

Your definition can be interpreted in a way that makes soldiers employees, even though the military hierarchy is not an employer. As such, clause (2) would still apply to the military, since it makes no reference to an employer.

I suggest rephrasing the definitions to:

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized group of persons
- an employer as a person or persons engaging one or more individuals to perform certain tasks, excluding the law enforcement and military bodies of UN member nations
- an employee as an individual who performs certain tasks for an employer in return for financial or other compensation
- a workplace as any site at which the tasks employees are engaged to perform are carried out;

We are always happy with significant human rights. :)

It had already been submitted when I saw this. Meh, I think it excludes the military and police well enough as is. If nations want to interpret it as covering their military/cops then let them. Of course, they could do that under article (9) anyway.

Bump - 17 approvals to go, last I checked.

2 more...push, laddie, push!

2 more...push, laddie, push!
OOC: Dammit! I have to leave for work soon too, I won't get to see it.

Quorum.

OOC: Dammit! I have to leave for work soon too, I won't get to see it.
Or not:

(Yeldan UN Mission, Jey, New Hamilton, Family guy watcher, Darpatia, Irish-Americans, Fascist Americans, Auchleucharies, Open sourcerer, Republic of Freedonia, Michelandia, Fonzoland, Gloveism, Barsaca, Fredonistan, Isis Rakael, San Vista, Noswick, Richard2008, Eve the First, Darth Mall, Xenious, James_xenoland, Setnickyism, Novo Sibirsk, Recapitualtion, QuantumSoft, The Derrak Quadrant, Higher Level Thinkers, Ocelots and owls, Belarum, Pantocratoria, Flibbleites, Hadristan, Viprota, Kevin Island, Vuland, Kyle Broflovski, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Chip Land, Frestonia, Queex, Manussa, Gaiah, Deblanon, Mandlandia, Kel Tamasheq, Mosnia, Pauli the Great, Sympatico, Coldrisk, Eyefl4shi4, Hysnia, Rob Parkers America, NeoSeantopia, The 9th founding, Elghinn, Armistria, Poletopia, Gunfreak, Marry Jane, Neo Ozia, Marginalistan, Emirtonvilley, Parma veritas, Free Soviet Peoples, Benfinan, Copenhaghenkoffenlaugh, Dobbyniania, Roisoin, Vampire Piggies, Edornia, PoorlyLitWood, Palentine UN Office, Spliffjoint, States fo America, Sharky4life, Brunelian BG advocates, The County of Worksop, Fidelity Theory, Kollathopia, Love and esterel, Jresnada, Traffic Lights 2, Square rootedness, Hrbek, The Kazoo Peoples, GX-Land, Tse Moana, Wyfind, A TARDIS, The Utopia of Bohemia, TonyJ, Usagi Cookies, Siddhartha Gotama, Master guns, The Kurtish Republic, Trinidad n Tobago, Jetgirlish, Ryzerk, Egalitarians, Rhylonna, Small Heath, Ryburn, Hardia, Great Denizistan, Minxos, CoralsandDiamonds, Nominee, Reiver Deamon, Pinko Liberals, Paddan Aram, Barca mi vala, Elastigirl, Randomplaceland, Gateborg, Molotokien, New Secundus, Arbeitnehmerrepublik, Cristogay Pavlovia, Lotsa Touchie, Chinese Confederacy)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Quorum.

Congratulations.

Some small comfort on an otherwise rotten day for workers.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Some small comfort on an otherwise rotten day for workers.
Silence, prole.

Congrats

http://knootoss.vogels.nu/images/workligitation.PNG

The Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss is in favour of workplace safety, but she must oppose this resolution We are in favour of keeping the workplace safe, but NSUN legislation must always either promote Sentient Rights or facilitate Collective International Action. This resolution does neither and is therefore unworthy of the consideration of this body.

Unfortunately, this Workplace Litigation Act will promote a ‘court culture’ where disgruntled employees and greedy individuals can sue for frivolous reasons. This U.N. resolution bypasses national judicial reforms by giving employees means to sue by shifting the responsibility of employees for their actions to the employer.

The resolution makes employers responsible for the behaviour of employees. This is simply ridiculous, as employees will be able to sue for not working according to the rules themselves! For example, if an employee comes to work drunk after this act is passed he can sue his employer for not sending him away, and if that employee subsequently has an accident operating machinery the employer will be held responsible as well.

I believe there should be a connon sense balance between Rights and Responsibilities. We should do everything to ensure that workplaces are safe, but we should not put the onus of responsibility entirely on the small businessman in the case of negligence or abuse by the employee.

Additionally, the Workplace Ligitation Act is culturally insensitive by forcing governments to have "adequately funded governmental bodies that can inspect work sites and ensure compliance with this act throughout [their] territory." This forces member states to create a huge national bureaucracy to carry out the whims of the United Nations. This is problematic for the poor developing nations, nations that do not have a centralised government, or nations that do not levy taxes on a national level. The Dutch Democratic Republic believes in having workers and employers cooperate in maintaining a decent level off workplace safety, but this resolution forces government intervention under the banner of the Transglobal UN government when alternative approaches exist.

Oppose frivolous lawsuits. Oppose this resolution.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

http://knootoss.vogels.nu/images/workligitation.PNG
Nice.:)

This U.N. resolution bypasses national judicial reforms
How?

For example, if an employee comes to work drunk after this act is passed he can sue his employer for not sending him away, and if that employee subsequently has an accident operating machinery the employer will be held responsible as well.
Only if they knowingly allow him to remain on the job, and if they knowingly allow a drunk to operate equipment they should be sued.

(7)Employers must not knowingly permit employees to enter or remain at the workplace while the employee's ability to work safely is so notably impaired as to endanger the employee and/or anyone else, or diminish their ability to operate machinery safely.

This forces member states to create a huge national bureaucracy to carry out the whims of the United Nations. This is problematic for the poor developing nations, nations that do not have a centralised government, or nations that do not levy taxes on a national level.
It requires nations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this act. No apologies.

Oppose frivolous lawsuits. Oppose this resolution.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
Ignore the ravings of this madman.

Sir, it is bad sport indeed to call someone a madman on the mere grounds of opposing your poorly-worded resolution!

The Workplace Litigation Act ignores common sense restrictions on litigation by giving special rights to employees and stripping them of any sort of responsibility for their own safety when they are at the workplace.

It is sad indeed then that the defence of this proposal against the hordes of lawyers and greedy opportunists that will abuse it is so weak! Indeed, all one has to do in the example given is make it reasonably convincing to a jury or judge that the employer could or should have been aware of your irresponsible behaviour such as drunknenness! That isn’t a fair burden of responsibility in a system of law where people are first and foremost responsible for their own actions!

Worse even, the feeble provision you use to apologise for the drunken employee does not exist anywhere else in the resolution to protect the employer. An accident in the workplace? Time to cash in boy, because according to this resolution the employer is almost always to blame! Got a job as a fireman or soldier? Sue when something bad happens – it is your Right! Inadvertently not issued with the latest handbook on some obscure technical matter? Sue! Sue! Sue! Paragraph six is with you. Put someone else in danger at the workplace? Pass the buck, because paragraph eight makes the employer responsible!

We support labour standards, but there is no reason for the employer to be made solely and judicially responsible for upholding them. This is why we oppose the Workplace Litigation Act.

Furthermore you claim that paragraph ten is merely about compliance. This is patent nonsense, as the Gnomes ensure compliance. That final provision is a tack-on that promotes a big-government agenda, disallowing member states to do things their own way. Shame!

~Aram Koopman
http://knootoss.vogels.nu/images/workligitation.PNG

http://knootoss.vogels.nu/images/workligitation.PNG

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/7159/cpesl9af.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9936/cpeslfullname9pd.jpg

Mr. Koopman:

Please cease and desist employing the style of our trademarked logo. Should you continue to infringe upon our trademark, we will be forced to file suit.

Cordially,
Sheik Narhcoc bin Cluich, esq.
Chief Litigator
Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd.

Please cease and desist employing the style of our trademarked logo. Should you continue to infringe upon our trademark, we will be forced to file suit.


Where is the international trademark law? Just invade.

Where is the international trademark law? Just invade.

Unlike our friends in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny, the people of Cluichstan do not invade when given the slightest of provocations. We prefer to settle our disputes peacefully whenever possible.

Should that prove impossible, however, we have ample means at the disposal of our intelligence agencies to deal with any problems.

Sir, it is bad sport indeed to call someone a madman on the mere grounds of opposing your poorly-worded resolution!

The Workplace Litigation Act ignores common sense restrictions on litigation by giving special rights to employees and stripping them of any sort of responsibility for their own safety when they are at the workplace.

It is sad indeed then that the defence of this proposal against the hordes of lawyers and greedy opportunists that will abuse it is so weak! Indeed, all one has to do in the example given is make it reasonably convincing to a jury or judge that the employer could or should have been aware of your irresponsible behaviour such as drunknenness! That isn’t a fair burden of responsibility in a system of law where people are first and foremost responsible for their own actions!

Worse even, the feeble provision you use to apologise for the drunken employee does not exist anywhere else in the resolution to protect the employer. An accident in the workplace? Time to cash in boy, because according to this resolution the employer is almost always to blame! Got a job as a fireman or soldier? Sue when something bad happens – it is your Right! Inadvertently not issued with the latest handbook on some obscure technical matter? Sue! Sue! Sue! Paragraph six is with you. Put someone else in danger at the workplace? Pass the buck, because paragraph eight makes the employer responsible!

We support labour standards, but there is no reason for the employer to be made solely and judicially responsible for upholding them. This is why we oppose the Workplace Litigation Act.

Furthermore you claim that paragraph ten is merely about compliance. This is patent nonsense, as the Gnomes ensure compliance. That final provision is a tack-on that promotes a big-government agenda, disallowing member states to do things their own way. Shame!

~Aram Koopman
http://knootoss.vogels.nu/images/workligitation.PNG

I am indeed sorry to have referred to you as a madman, Mr. Koopman. What I meant to say was "I find it curious that a serial arsonist would be holding forth on the subject of Workplace Safety".

First, allow me to answer a couple of points from your first post.
NSUN legislation must always either promote Sentient Rights or facilitate Collective International Action. This resolution does neither and is therefore unworthy of the consideration of this body.
As a member of NSO, I agree with this statement somewhat. Although not the part about about the proposal being "unworthy", obviously. I would agree that the NSUN should mostly concern itself with human rights (or sentient rights, but that's for another discussion) and truly international concerns. I would extend that into the area of "social justice" as well. This is a Human Rights resolution. It could have been written differently so as to allow it to be submitted as "Social Justice". That would have involved far more intrusive (and economically damaging) measures and I'm sure that you would have liked it even less. I am convinced that workers do have the right to a safe workplace and that it is altogether proper for the NSUN to legislate on this matter.
Additionally, the Workplace Ligitation Act is culturally insensitive by forcing governments to have "adequately funded governmental bodies that can inspect work sites and ensure compliance with this act throughout [their] territory." This forces member states to create a huge national bureaucracy to carry out the whims of the United Nations.
I'm failing to understand how this is culturally insensitive. Perhaps you could elaborate some more. Are there cultures where it would be considered improper to protect the safety of workers while in the workplace? Certainly there are governments that would consider it improper, and who have no government agencies to protect the rights of workers. This will require them to establish such an agency. The alternative approach would have been to have this Act establish a UN agency to do that. As written, enforcement is left in the hands of national governments who will then be able to enforce it within the bounds of their unique local situations.

Now, to address your points about "employer liability" and "frivolous litigation" in this (and the earlier) post. I'm sure you will remember that in the original draft version of this (at UNOG) it did place some responsibilities on employees. It was decided that it made no sense to have the NSUN setting workplace rules for individual employees. This would have been micro-management of the worst sort. The employer owns the workplace, thus he (or she) is responsible for what takes place on that property. Workers are still responsible for their actions if they willfully disobey the rules, but employers have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to enforce those rules.
As for the "frivolous lawsuits", Common Sense Act II defines "Idiotic negligence" thus:
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
and

4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime,
Now, if an employee willfully disregards instructions from the employer pertaining to the enforcement of this act, then at that point the employee is is in violation and is liable.

Allow me to point out Article (9) of this act:
(9)All UN member nations are encouraged to enact workplace safety legislation at the national level that would further expand on the concepts embodied within this act. Nothing in this legislation shall be taken as forcing or inducing nations to lower existing national standards of workplace safety.
Your government is free to interpret the legal ramifications arising from the implementation of this act. This is why my government did not go into detail defining legal aspects, responsibilities and liabilities in this act. It is assumed that those details can (and will) be addressed in legislation on the national level.

This is the first non-repeal proposal I've seen that I actually like.

This is the first non-repeal proposal I've seen that I actually like.


Didn't you see my proposal about Meteorological Cooperation?

Or the one currently at vote?

Or the one with the teddy bears?

If you'll allow me too start my dictatorship like heart...

Work safety regulations are oten bumbling confusing and unnecessary. Our workers know not to touch a live wire, and to put on a hard hat when on a construction site. Also, it releases the floodgates to the demon hordes of unions, which are banned, allowing lawyers and fraudsters the perfect opportunity to make a quick buck.
It releases the socialist hordes upon the hard working man, and leads the way to a uture of beauracracy, political correctness and civil servants. It has no use in our country, and so we believe in anyone elses.
If we want safety legislation we'd have it in already. otherwise stop butting in on national sovereignity.

Assuming you want to use this thread...bump.

I think it is very importnat to have tight health and safety controls in the workplace

I have placed my nation's vote in support of this resolution and urge other delegates to do the same.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

I have to vote against this. There's absolutely no mention of safety railings.

http://www.lowbudgetpictures.com/Words/sickflics/spacemutiny/railing%20death%20010.jpg

- an employer as a person or persons engaging employees to perform certain tasks, excluding the law enforcement and military bodies of UN member nations;


Okay you define employer but don't leave out law enforcement or military bodies in this one as you do here they deserve to be protected as much as anybody working does. You need to word the proposal for them to be inclided as there are times when they can be protected and still not interfer with national security and all that mess.

It goes to the fact you would not send them into an area without proper protection of some sort nor with equipment that is no working properly. Thus this gives an out to providing your police and military with what they need to do their work safely, adding to the danger of their duties. They above any civilian should have every effort made to protect them in their duties and provide the best equipment to them.

i find that i must vote against this resolution because it violates my national soveriegnty in an area that is well outside the bounds of the UN. What i and my workers are doing is our business, so long as we do not impose those same conditions upon someone else's workers. This should be an issue, not a resolution.

--dunerat

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations
-------
So, you want to legally define corporations as people?

BAD idea.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution:
- person as one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations
-------
So, you want to legally define corporations as people?

BAD idea.

That's the whole idea of having corporations. They are legal entities capable of contracting.


As for the entire resolution I don't see the need for it. It seems to impose a minimal standard of care. A breach of this resolution would likely also result in civil liability - so why can't this just be taken care of by regular negligence laws?

Just seems like a huge make-work project.

I will oppose this measure. It seems far too restrictive, and socialist as well. I would prefer to have the freedom to decide this for myself.

I would encourage all to oppose this measure!

Assuming you want to use this thread...bump.
Thanks Gruen. Yeah, we may as well use this one. I'm not really planning to get heavily involved in the "debate". If good points are brought up I'll respond to them, if not...meh. The resolution is pretty easy to understand. If people like it they'll vote for it, if they don't they'll vote against.

What about jobs that are, by definition, dangerous and unsafe?

How is this Social Justice?

jobs that are naturly dangerous and unsafe aren't counted.

it's social justice because everyone is being taken cared of not just the rich who are currently taking advantage of the poor.

Thanks Gruen. Yeah, we may as well use this one. I'm not really planning to get heavily involved in the "debate". If good points are brought up I'll respond to them, if not...meh. The resolution is pretty easy to understand. If people like it they'll vote for it, if they don't they'll vote against.

Personally, I'd rather see a new thread, starting with the text of the resolution as is and a new poll ... since you're indifferent. Mod discretion perhaps? :)

For the record, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity have voted in favour.

Personally, I'd rather see a new thread, starting with the text of the resolution as is and a new poll ... since you're indifferent. Mod discretion perhaps? :)

For the record, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity have voted in favour.

We agree with our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity. We prefer to see a new thread as the official voting thread, started with the submitted text. We think it helps focus discussion on issues arising from the resolution being voted on, rather than issues which may have been overcome by events during the drafting process.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Intracircumcordei is generally in favour of this, however, how does this apply to carears which are generally 'dangereous by nature', such as: emergency response(firefighting etc..), military, astraunotical, daredevil carny, extreme sport entertainers, spys, paparotzi, etc..

I can understand it for a large majority of employment but there seems to be some that are inately dangerous and that risk is very hard to remove substancially.

Intracircumcordei is generally in favour of this, however, how does this apply to carears which are generally 'dangereous by nature', such as: emergency response(firefighting etc..), military, astraunotical, daredevil carny, extreme sport entertainers, spys, paparotzi, etc..

I can understand it for a large majority of employment but there seems to be some that are inately dangerous and that risk is very hard to remove substancially.

The honorable representative of Intracircumcordei raises a valid point. During the early drafting stages of this proposal, we voiced the same concern. We believe, though, that the final resolution accommodates our shared concern.

The proposal requires employers to "make every reasonable effort to furnish a place of employment which is free from hazards." (Emphasis added) In the case of law enforcement personnel, firefighters, paramedics, spies, and many other occupations, there is no such thing as an established workplace. They must operate wherever their services are needed. Thus, it would not be reasonable to expect an employer to furnish a safe workplace when no such thing exists.

In other cases, such as daredevils and extreme sport participants, we again find "reasonable" to be the key. In such cases, it would be unreasonable to expect an employer to eleminate all workplace hazards. Some hazards are an inherent and necessary part of the job. What is reasonable and unreasonable in such cases would necessarily be a matter for determination by the courts, if the issue arose, or by those implementing the resolution.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Personally, I'd rather see a new thread, starting with the text of the resolution as is and a new poll ... since you're indifferent. Mod discretion perhaps?

For the record, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity have voted in favour.
We agree with our distinguished colleague from Mikitivity. We prefer to see a new thread as the official voting thread, started with the submitted text. We think it helps focus discussion on issues arising from the resolution being voted on, rather than issues which may have been overcome by events during the drafting process.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large
Oh all right, since the both of you want one I'll make a new thread. :)

I also made one at the same time! Whooops! :) Though I had a poll atttached to my thread, as the resolution sponsor, I think it is more appropriate for the official UN Floor Debate to be launched with your post and thus I've asked the moderators to delete my thread.

If you would rather have the poll attached (which means I can create the image in NSWiki when I write about this resolution), ask the moderators to delete yours and not mine. I'm happy either way. :)

And good luck!