NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking through the UN resolutions and I was appaled that the rights of citizens recieiving protection against sexual harrasment in the workplace has not been addressed.

This is an issue close to my heart, as I have seen it's (employment sexual harrasment's) devastating effects first hand... watching my friend go through a situation.

Please let me know if any changes need to be made in this... and please support the bill.

This is the first draft:


Title: Outlawing Employment Harassment

Strength: Strong
Category: Moral Decency


ALARMED that in UN Member nations there are no absolute standards concerning Employment Harassment.

DEFINING Employment Harassment as unwanted speech, insinuations, touching, writing, drawing, or threatening that abuses any of the employment parties sexually. This would include anything that would make any of the parties feel sexually threatened.

DEFINES Employment Parties as co-workers, employees, and employers.

CONVINCED that each of the parties involved in the employment relationship should not be put in a position where they feel they are sexually threatened or harassed.

URGING the UN and its members to take the immediate action.

The Nation States UN:

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the privacy and feelings of the employment parties as well as the freedom from harassment.

FURTHER RESOLVES that each nation must do what is necessary to protect against Employment Harassment.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all the employment parties to be protected from employment harassment. This includes those in bonding and in slavery.
3. MANDATES that nations must take action against those who sexually harass an employment party.

FURTHER MANDATES that nations must make this resolution and it’s standards clear to their citizens.

EVEN FURTHER MANDATES that nation must determine how to punish the violators of this resolution, but must set a minimum of the following penalties:
a. If the violator is an employee or co-worker, he/she must be immediately fired, with the violation put on his/her record resume, to remain there for at least 3 years.
b. If the violator is an employer, he/she must be fined anywhere from 50-100% (chosen at each nations discretion) of their annual profits OR receive 30 days in prison.

If the government feels these minimums are not enough they may impose even further (but not inhumane) penalties.

4. AFFIRMS that the right to protection from employment harassment is of he utmost importance.
5. FORBIDS sexual Employment Harassment, especially among each UN member nation’s government.
6. CREATES the Association for Protection Against Employment Sexual Harassment (APAESX) to aid nations in their fight against employment harassment.
7. CALLS upon all honorable nations to protect Employment Parties.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7306/nopersonalaxes2hk.png

Marlin (from Finding Nemo): "He's trying to speak to me... I know it!"

Clean up the micromanagement, stop trying to rule over our penal system, state it in general as a principle, and we might support.

Marlin (from Finding Nemo): "He's trying to speak to me... I know it!"

He means that you shouldn't let your personal OOC feelings override a sensible approach to legislation. I think.

Okk....

can you explain to me what "OOC" stands for... I'm new around here and a little ignorant.

So if I take out the penalities and instead state something like "Nations may decide for themselves to how to punish violators, but should impose reasonable punishments to fit the violation." that would be better?

Can you help me with the wording of that?

Okk....

can you explain to me what "OOC" stands for... I'm new around here and a little ignorant.

So if I take out the penalities and instead state something like "Nations may decide for themselves to how to punish violators, but should impose reasonable punishments to fit the violation." that would be better?

Can you help me with the wording of that?

OOC: Out of character
IC: In character
Many player RP (role play) characters as their leaders, who have their own personalities and beliefs.

Basically, this proposal goes deep into what should be decided at the national level. So only a very general statement would be acceptable to us, but I am not sure how to do it.

I agree with this resolution, and would support it as is, but I have one suggestion: Where it mention 50-100% of profits, this would be useless to a business operating in a deficit. It would also hurt shareholders and employees of the business. It just seems to me it would be better to have a set amount of money the harrasser has to pay.

EVEN FURTHER MANDATES that nation must determine how to punish the violators of this resolution, but must set a minimum of the following penalties:
a. If the violator is an employee or co-worker, he/she must be immediately fired, with the violation put on his/her record resume, to remain there for at least 3 years.
b. If the violator is an employer, he/she must be fined anywhere from 50-100% (chosen at each nations discretion) of their annual profits OR receive 30 days in prison.

As others have stated, Ceorana demands that this entire paragraph be stricken.

Strength: Strong
Category: Moral Decency
This is not Moral Decency. Moral Decency restricts rights. Are you saying people have a right to harass others? I understand the idea about restricting speech, but I still think this is more likely to be Human Rights.

ALARMED that in UN Member nations there are no absolute standards concerning Employment Harassment.
Not true. There's no UN standard.

DEFINING Employment Harassment as unwanted speech, insinuations, touching, writing, drawing, or threatening that abuses any of the employment parties sexually. This would include anything that would make any of the parties feel sexually threatened.
What about, you know, violence? Also, what about denying people employment opportunities, passing them over for promotions, withholding wages, etc.?

DEFINES Employment Parties as co-workers, employees, and employers.
Ok.

CONVINCED that each of the parties involved in the employment relationship should not be put in a position where they feel they are sexually threatened or harassed.
I wouldn't just make this about sexual harassment. However strongly you feel about that, it's not really broad enough. Try to cover workplace harassment and discrimination in one.

URGING the UN and its members to take the immediate action.
And then this is definitely not a 'Strong' resolution: it's 'Mild', because you're not forcing anything. This line makes no sense, actually; cut it.

1. RESOLVES that all nations must recognize the privacy and feelings of the employment parties as well as the freedom from harassment.
Doesn't make sense. UN-mandated recognition of 'feelings'? No. I think it's more reasonable to start declaring that all people have a right to be free of harassment based on sex, gender identity, sexual preference, race, religion, etc. Also, don't cover disability with this: disability discrimination in the workplace is too complex an issue for this resolution.

FURTHER RESOLVES that each nation must do what is necessary to protect against Employment Harassment.
This should be number 2: each new line should be numbered.

2. ESTABLISHES the right of all the employment parties to be protected from employment harassment. This includes those in bonding and in slavery.
Slavery is illegal in the UN, so scrap the second sentence. The first should be merged with point 1.

3. MANDATES that nations must take action against those who sexually harass an employment party.
Be even with capitalisation: it should be Employment Party.

FURTHER MANDATES that nations must make this resolution and it’s standards clear to their citizens.
"it's" not "its". Also, this line doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. How about a more general "ENCOURAGES nations to provide information and education about harassment law to their citizens"

EVEN FURTHER MANDATES that nation must determine how to punish the violators of this resolution, but must set a minimum of the following penalties:
Heh. Don't use 'EVEN FURTHER'. Just go with 'MANDATES' (although I think 'REQUIRES' is better, personally.

a. If the violator is an employee or co-worker, he/she must be immediately fired, with the violation put on his/her record resume, to remain there for at least 3 years.
b. If the violator is an employer, he/she must be fined anywhere from 50-100% (chosen at each nations discretion) of their annual profits OR receive 30 days in prison.
Scratch this: sentencing is a local decision. Simply put 'appropriate sentences' or something.

4. AFFIRMS that the right to protection from employment harassment is of he utmost importance.
"the" not "he".

5. FORBIDS sexual Employment Harassment, especially among each UN member nation’s government.
There shouldn't be any 'especially'. Employment Harassment is bad, and that's really it. Lose the second clause.

6. CREATES the Association for Protection Against Employment Sexual Harassment (APAESX) to aid nations in their fight against employment harassment.
Hmm. I'm not sure this is necessary. Firstly, it should be about Employment Harassment more generally. Secondly, this sort of association sounds like something which could be set up independently of the UN. What the UN would be good at is collating employment law from different countries and spreading it internationally, for the sake of people working abroad.

7. CALLS upon all honorable nations to protect Employment Parties.
This sort of line just seems to be repeated. Over and over you say this: say it once, strongly, and leave it.

I think this is an interesting idea. Not sure I'd support it yet, if ever, but it certainly needs some work.

Holy freakin' Gruenberg!

Thanks Greunberg.... that was really helpful... I'll set about wokring on revising it! :)

Karlania feels that this measure would intrude far too deeply into matters already covered by Karlanian law. While well-intended this matter is not one suited for the UN.

Karlania feels that this measure would intrude far too deeply into matters already covered by Karlanian law. While well-intended this matter is not one suited for the UN.

The government of St Edmund agrees with the government of Karlania.

All right... I have updated the proposal in a new thread!