NationStates Jolt Archive

oops ...

(8)Employers shall ensure that employees do not engage in any inappropriate activity


If Jane is jealous that Mark picked Sue over her, she can sue the employer for those 2 having a relationship.

We shall vote nay, because in general this resolution is open to many frivolous law suits.

(8)Employers shall ensure that employees do not engage in any inappropriate activity


If Jane is jealous that Mark picked Sue over her, she can sue the employer for those 2 having a relationship.

We shall vote nay, because in general this resolution is open to many frivolous law suits.

This is a horrible example of selectively quoting a resolution to distort its meaning. The actual text reads:

(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.

Reading the full text of the clause makes it clear that the example put forth by the representative of Jamesamasaurus is ridiculously inapplicable.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is a horrible example of selectively quoting a resolution to distort its meaning. The actual text reads:

(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.

Reading the full text of the clause makes it clear that the example put forth by the representative of Jamesamasaurus is ridiculously inapplicable.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

No but the fivalous lawsuits against "running with scissors" will be the bane of every company owning individual - it is not for a company to dictate employee behaviour where such actions do not directly harm the company or it business. Anything else will result in harming a person's individual human rights (self expression, right from non interference etc. ad nauseum) which will just serve to make lawyers richer and the UN a laughing stock for creating conflicting resolutions. Another ill thought resolution endemic of officials with nothing better to do than waste resources and invent new ways to make the world unworkable.

The problem I have with this legislation is in the first part. It states:

(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.

There are some jobs that require people to be in potentially hazardous situations. Even though employers are required to inform employees of potential hazards, accidents happen. If, for example, a worker gets hurt on the job because, say, something explodes in a factory, this legislation could open the floodgates for a class action lawsuit. Sure, the person hurt may get compensation, but since it could have happened to any other employees when they are supposed to be guaranteed safe from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm...do you see where I'm going here?

No workplace can be completely free of hazards, obviously, but I think that the point should be made clear that even if faced with some sort of occupational hazard that may cause physical harm or death the employees should be made aware of it and how to prevent it, but not that the employer should be required to remove said threat to personal employee safety.

If I'm simply misinterpreting this, please tell me, but I feel that unless there is something put in this resolution that would prevent such lawsuits from happening to these companies, I must vote against it.

The problem I have with this legislation is in the first part. It states:

(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.

There are some jobs that require people to be in potentially hazardous situations. Even though employers are required to inform employees of potential hazards, accidents happen. If, for example, a worker gets hurt on the job because, say, something explodes in a factory, this legislation could open the floodgates for a class action lawsuit. Sure, the person hurt may get compensation, but since it could have happened to any other employees when they are supposed to be guaranteed safe from hazards that could cause death or serious physical harm...do you see where I'm going here?

No workplace can be completely free of hazards, obviously, but I think that the point should be made clear that even if faced with some sort of occupational hazard that may cause physical harm or death the employees should be made aware of it and how to prevent it, but not that the employer should be required to remove said threat to personal employee safety.

If I'm simply misinterpreting this, please tell me, but I feel that unless there is something put in this resolution that would prevent such lawsuits from happening to these companies, I must vote against it.

Simple. It all depends on what your national courts of law consider to be "reasonable action" and "as fully as possible." If your nation dislikes lawsuits, you are given the flexibility to implement this directive with very restrictive views of what these terms mean. There will be as few or as many lawsuits as you wish to have.

EDIT: Most developed RL countries have regulations in place with similar terms to these. Most RL developed countries do not exhibit the lawsuit mayhem seen in the US.