NationStates Jolt Archive

Workplace Safety Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: 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

Votes For: 1,833

Votes Against: 1,837

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Sun Feb 19 2006

Your Regional UN Delegate, Yeldan UN Mission, has voted FOR this resolution.
The resolution at vote. Comments?

The draft proposal discussions for this resolution are available in the following thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=465371

Since it is unrealistic to expect ambassadors to participate in every draft proposal discussion, it is certainly OK if points brought up in the draft stage of this topic were dealt with before, but the above link may address some questions about why the resolution is written in a certain way and ambassadors are encouraged to use this as a reference as well.

As a nation rich in industry, agriculture and communications, I am strongly in favor of this proposal for many reasons.
1.) Delegation of issues- Allow the people to appoint their own commissions
keeps them safe and busy, hence major production and happy workers!
2.) Injuries = Loss, Loss = Lower profits, Lower profits = dissention among
the workers. Hmmmmm a pattern is developing here.
3.) As Chief Mucky Muck of this Nation I am And shall always be guided by the
principle of social and economic freedom and it begins with the people!

Like Brazianna, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity is a capitalist nation with a strong belief that a safe and happy work force is healthy for the international community and happily votes in favour of this resolution.

This proposal serves no purpose.

All of the operative words are entirely too subjective. For instance what constitutes "inappropriate activity" in my country where attaching sticks to your feet and propelling yourself down snow covered mountains at speeds in excess of 60 mph in common may not be inappropriate in your country.

More importantly it is superflous. All that it seems to do is 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?

To require countries to set up and "adequately fund" a governmental body that is duplicating the efforts of the legal system is wasteful and runs the risk of having the agency and the courts come up with conflicting decisions.

This resolution is a perpetuation of the worst in make work excessive government.

This proposal serves no purpose.

All of the operative words are entirely too subjective. For instance what constitutes "inappropriate activity" in my country where attaching sticks to your feet and propelling yourself down snow covered mountains at speeds in excess of 60 mph in common may not be inappropriate in your country.

More importantly it is superflous. All that it seems to do is 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?


I've seen no UN report confirming that all nations have regular negligence laws, which is exactly why the Yeldan government originally proposed this idea some time ago. Since this resolution is a "human rights" category it essentially is a statement of the international community that nations should in fact address issues relating to workplace safety, and key among those is that nations should come up with their own domestic interpetations for what is safe.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Yeldan people are spread out amongst a number of star systems, and thus far more likely to have extremes in local environments that favor "loose" international laws which encourage national governments to legislate and protect their citizens. In Mikitivity we do in fact enjoy snow skiing, but regulations on our idea office temperatures might not apply in a semi-arrid nation.

I'd urge you to reconsider your vote on this resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

I've seen no UN report confirming that all nations have regular negligence laws, which is exactly why the Yeldan government originally proposed this idea some time ago. Since this resolution is a "human rights" category it essentially is a statement of the international community that nations should in fact address issues relating to workplace safety, and key among those is that nations should come up with their own domestic interpetations for what is safe.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Yeldan people are spread out amongst a number of star systems, and thus far more likely to have extremes in local environments that favor "loose" international laws which encourage national governments to legislate and protect their citizens. In Mikitivity we do in fact enjoy snow skiing, but regulations on our idea office temperatures might not apply in a semi-arrid nation.

I'd urge you to reconsider your vote on this resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

Negligence laws are not usually in statute but are common law, so if your nation operates under a common law system then you have negligence law which provide for minimum standards of care. If your country uses a civil law or other system then negligence standards of care are likely included (these are very basic) and if there is no minimum standard of care in your country then workplace safety is the last of your concerns.

Saying that this is a human rights issue and telling the international community to address workplace safey issues is fine but when you mandate that each country has to set up and fund an agency when 99% of countries already have courts to deal with this is wasteful. It's like saying that the international community is worried about theft and making a declaration that stealing is wrong and that each country should set up an agency to look into issues of ownership. Why???

We should focus on more important matters like smoking in UN buildings.

Current Voting Status
Votes For: 1,973
Votes Against: 1,933

Going for the record for closest vote ever? ;)

Current Voting Status
Votes For: 1,973
Votes Against: 1,933

Going for the record for closest vote ever? ;)

The freedom fighter debate was like that in the beginning... ;)
I guess it will be another feeder decision.

*snip*

We should focus on more important matters like smoking in UN buildings.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich puffs on a cheroot, eyeing the representative from Margueritaville warily.

I hope that was meant as sarcasm...

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich puffs on a cheroot, eyeing the representative from Margueritaville warily.

I hope that was meant as sarcasm...


Absolutely not.

I think that we should be required to smoke in UN buildings. :D

Current Voting Status
Votes For: 1,973
Votes Against: 1,933

Going for the record for closest vote ever? ;)

OOC: Gatesville and The Pacific have already voted against, which might be skewing things some.

Absolutely not.

I think that we should be required to smoke in UN buildings. :D

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich lets out a hearty laugh that echoes throughout the chamber.

That is perfectly acceptable to me.

OOC: Gatesville and The Pacific have already voted against, which might be skewing things some.


Have fun figuring out which way the North Pacific is going to go. ;)

The wording does not require nations to create and fund a redundant agency to enforce workplace safety regulations; it only states that each nation should have an internal agency capable of doing so, wheither said agency is newly founded, existing, or existing and newly funded.

The wording does not require nations to create and fund a redundant agency to enforce workplace safety regulations; it only states that each nation should have an internal agency capable of doing so, wheither said agency is newly founded, existing, or existing and newly funded.

It is redundant because this duty is already assumed by the legal system.

For instance:
I work in a Zamboni manufacturing plant. My employer wants to save a few pennies so he does not hire people to properly dispose of the coolant used in the manufacture of the Zambonis. I'm a simple labourer asked to dispose of the coolant and I accidentally freeze my testicles in thowing this substance out.

Result:
I sue the pig. I find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency and sue him for everything that he's got.
It comes out in trial that I was given a two day training course on the handling of Zamboni coolant, I was given safety gloves and a cup but I was so drunk that day that I forgot to wear them.
The employer wins the case.

But - b/c of the meddlesome UN the Workplace Safety Mugwump gets involved and launches into a four year investigation into the proper handling of Zamboni coolant. After 4 years and 2 billion zylotys a report is tendered requiring the employer to pay for testicle replacement surgery and unspecified damages of 5 billion zylotys.
The employer screams double-jeopardy. The Mugwump says "shut up". And my nation's falls into a decade long recession due to the collapse of the Zamboni industry and the cost of the report.


Maybe it's just me but I see this result as inevitable.

Maybe it's just me but I see this result as inevitable.


It's probably just you.

All of the operative words are entirely too subjective. For instance what constitutes "inappropriate activity" in my country where attaching sticks to your feet and propelling yourself down snow covered mountains at speeds in excess of 60 mph in common may not be inappropriate in your country.



People are paid for skiing in your country?

*considers moving to margueritaville*

We have consulted the Squirrels and have formulated this statment:

Why should we create an unnecisary and intrusive agencies to comply with others notions of "Human Rights".

We have little safety regulations requiring only that proper instruction and trianing is given in hazerdous industries. Basket weaving and ladder making do not neccistate safety regulation of any kind. Mining, hard machinery, and arms manufacturing are by thier very nature hazerdous employment ventures and an employee is aware of this if they have common sense.

The careless,, inattentive, or down right dumb do not need protection but instead should fall victim to the laws of Darwinism like all creatures of the world.


So say the Squirrels

Negligence laws are not usually in statute but are common law, so if your nation operates under a common law system then you have negligence law which provide for minimum standards of care.


Mikitivity's legal system is based on cantonal law, which in short is to say "No, the legal system of Margueritaville and most other nations have absolutely no legal standing, history, or relevance, in Mikitivity."

This resolution seeks to encourage nations to continue to develop their own national laws, but in a way such that workers are protected. The UN has not made any assumptions as to what laws already exist or don't exist ... it is just making a recommendation that if minimum standards relating to workplace safety do not exist that they should.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC:
I think you missed my point ... nobody here can make assumptions about other players domestic laws, for the simple reason that we don't all have common histories. In RL, Switzerland doesn't use the same "common law" system that the United States adopted from England. For a similar reason, it fair to say that Mikitivity isn't like Ausserland or Gruenberg (even though our nations get along great). So, I think you'll find that few of us have adopted US History or the US legal system -- NationStates is our vehicle to build our own laws and history. :)

It is redundant because this duty is already assumed by the legal system.

For instance:
I work in a Zamboni manufacturing plant. My employer wants to save a few pennies so he does not hire people to properly dispose of the coolant used in the manufacture of the Zambonis. I'm a simple labourer asked to dispose of the coolant and I accidentally freeze my testicles in thowing this substance out.

Result:
I sue the pig. I find a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency and sue him for everything that he's got.
It comes out in trial that I was given a two day training course on the handling of Zamboni coolant, I was given safety gloves and a cup but I was so drunk that day that I forgot to wear them.
The employer wins the case.

But - b/c of the meddlesome UN the Workplace Safety Mugwump gets involved and launches into a four year investigation into the proper handling of Zamboni coolant. After 4 years and 2 billion zylotys a report is tendered requiring the employer to pay for testicle replacement surgery and unspecified damages of 5 billion zylotys.
The employer screams double-jeopardy. The Mugwump says "shut up". And my nation's falls into a decade long recession due to the collapse of the Zamboni industry and the cost of the report.


Maybe it's just me but I see this result as inevitable.

Wow. What a ridiculously convoluted way of saying nothing.

Firstly, the fundamental ethical issues with a two day HAZMAT training course coupled with a HAZMAT employee being foolish enough to handle such materials while intoxicated aside, this is exactly the sort of situation that could be avoided with this legislation.

Secondly, I find it unlikely that we will ever manage to pass UN legislation that would allow us to completely bypass any existing national laws you have regarding Double Jeopardy situations.

Finally, you will note in the text of the Proposal, the Mugwump, as you ever so poetically called him, would be a representative of an organization formed and appointed by YOUR GOVERNMENT. What are the odds that your own judicial system would be turned on its ear by allowing power to sit in judgement as your government has appointed it to. One would hope those odds would be slim.

Respectfully,

Oskar Feldstein
The Master in Repose's Representative of Reposition
Representing the Constitutional Monarchy of Kivisto

Perhaps I'm missing the provision or clause which allows for this but....wouldn't this make having a military somewhat useless? Since you couldn't go out of your way to put them in a dangerous situation, after all.

I voted FOR.

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

For future reference.

Fonzo,

Ah, so I WAS missing the clause. Thanks! Must've skimmed my eyes past it.

Although I would probably add firefighters to that list.

Fonzo,

Ah, so I WAS missing the clause. Thanks! Must've skimmed my eyes past it.

Although I would probably add firefighters to that list.

In my opinion, the main difference is that the listed occupations are at risk because bad guys are shooting at them; there is little the government can do about it, and the responsible party for the hazards should not be the employer.

Firefighters operate in risky environments, but it is still the duty of the government to make every reasonable effort to ensure they are safe. You cannot blame the fire.

The Socialist Republic is tentatively voting for the proposal, with the understanding that it may interpret section four conservatively, as attempting to account for every conceivable safety hazard no matter how negligible or statistically uncommon it is is both impossibly expensive and a massive drain on productivity. We believe our standards are adequate, and can only assume that the resolution implies that it is up to employers and legislators to determine which issues are serious enough to require preventative regulation.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

My country protests in reference to articles 1 and 8 of this proposal. While I have no doubt our governments wish to make workplaces as safe as possible, to make employers responsible for every possible hazard that could cause injury or death is absolutely absurd.

It simply does not account for the natural hazards of certain professions and there is no way to make all professions even excluding the military free from all risks. A construction worker could miss a nail with hammer and accidently break his hand or a Park ranger might get caught in a mudslide and be buried alive.

While an employer might safeguard against foreseeable risks, there is no way they can guarantee a workplace will be absolutely free from possible harm. Even in an office building, someone could attempt to lift a file too heavy for them and give themselves a hernia. Lifting files is part of the job, however to leave no room for human error and to find the employer open for suit without exception is foolish.

This same arguement applies to section 8, while an employer might be accountable, it is rediculous to expect them to ensure that no employee will ever act unapproriately. While an employer can encourage or discourage certain behaviors, there is not possible way that they could prevent all misconduct. While they might not allow it, an employer would still be doubly at fault if an employee blantantly disreguards company policy and procedure and injures himself or someone else on the job. An employer might even be liable if a criminal broke into the building and attacked some of the employees. And this, is utterly preposterous, therefore, we vote AGAINST this proposal.

(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.

(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.


We are dealing with businesses, not babysitters. These clauses basically place all blame for damage caused by employee misconduct upon the employer. Not only is this unjust, it would be very damaging financially to any business in the event an employee were injured by his own negligence and then was empowered to sue his employer.

I voted for this as a delegate, both times.

While Etherica has refrained from commenting on UN draft resolutions in this forum before, we are particuarly concerned by this resolution. It mandates that no employer adopt unsafe practices, which is all well and good. But, rather than allow each nation to deal with enforcing this provision themselves, through the legal system, market sanctions, or regulation as appropriate, it would provide a one-size-fits-all solution -- government oversight and regulation.

This is problematic not only because it overrides national tradition and sovereignty but because it ignores the frequent unaccountability of government institutions. In Etherica, we have had massive problems with government inspectors demanding bribes to pass inspections. We do not doubt that these problems are soluble, and are attempting to end corruption through any means we can find. However, to require us to create another bureaucracy, this one dealing with workers safety, would be extremely counterproductive at this time.

Etherica stands firmly committed to worker rights through any workable method -- either lawsuits through the legal system, or boycotts of transgressing businesses. However, introducing a new bureaucracy will not solve this problem -- it will only create another layer of government regulation and red tape.

i belive it is the countries decision to choose what labor safety regulations are in place, so if you want your workers safe, then make it a law yourself!

I do think there's a little bit of misunderstanding going on here.

I'm sure it's not deliberate, as I know, from my friendly interactions with most of you at the Strangers' Bar, that all UN reps are models of probity, purity and pleasantry who would never attempt selective quotation as a debating tactic.

So I point out to the delegate from Bonhommes that the clauses of which he complains follow Clause 1, which says


(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.

The phrases I've emphasised are the ones that leave it up to you whether or not your businesses become babysitters.

You or your courts courts may very well rule that, say, employees should be expected to know that running while holding sharp objects is dangerous and their own common sense, not their employer, should have stopped them.

Or they may hold that a notice saying, "Running with sharp objects may be hazardous to your health!" is all that is needed to 'inform employees as fully as possible of potential hazards' concerning sharp objects.

They might take the view that a more general notice, saying, "Employees are warned that using equipment for any purpose or in any way other than that for which it is designed is dangerous" covers such a situation.

They may think that adding, "and severe penalties for such misuse may ensue" is as reasonable an effort as could be expected to 'ensure' that these things don't happen.

In short, they may well hold that in specific circumstances, in a particular case, employers can comply with the "ensuring" clauses by doing nothing/putting up warning notices/sacking people who disobey warning notices. In other, different cases, they may require different actions before they will consider the employer in compliance.

It's up to you and/or your court system. Anything more, surely, would be micromanagement, which, as we are frequently told, the UN doesn't have time for.
________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

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



We find this to be something we can't go for as in your definition of EMPLOYER you take action to exempt them from providing proper safety considerations for those who would need it most. I read in another track on this subject that one person suggested adding firefighters to it. Next thing will be pilots, train engineers, and who else. As a nations work force needs protection especialy those who at one point may face dangers beyond what they would every day. We need to insure that police, military, and anyone else are properly equiped and trained to do their duties. This excudes them and allows rogue nations to draft folks into say military hand them a weapon and dump them into enemy lands without any training at all. Thus feel it should not exempt anyone from protection regardless of their occupation. As they all should be afforded as safe a work place as possible at all times.

Also believe that you should just define EMPLOYER in this section and leave the actions of this to other areas. As leaves door open for somebody to simply define something and make it a law by how they word it not a simple definition of something.. Here you don't require an employeer to treat police and military same as they might other workers under them in regards to safety issues in general.. that both should have applied. As many times civilians perform certain duties that once military personal did ony they don't carry a rifle or wear a uniform just do the job. Thus why should picking up a rifle and putting on a uniform mean you don't get protected like the civilians now doing the same job you once did.

OOC: While was in US Army was working in maintance field and did depo level work on electronic equipment. Today civilians do that same task many learned their skills in military and got out to do same jobs they did in military only for more pay. Thus is it or would it be fair to not provide same saftety standards for both active military and the civilians who took their jobs...

In my opinion, the main difference is that the listed occupations are at risk because bad guys are shooting at them; there is little the government can do about it, and the responsible party for the hazards should not be the employer.

Firefighters operate in risky environments, but it is still the duty of the government to make every reasonable effort to ensure they are safe. You cannot blame the fire.

Hmmm...not sure. I think they're closer to the same than you suggest, but both look to be covered anyways.

This resolution seeks to encourage nations to continue to develop their own national laws, but in a way such that workers are protected. The UN has not made any assumptions as to what laws already exist or don't exist ... it is just making a recommendation that if minimum standards relating to workplace safety do not exist that they should.


The representative of Margueritaville thanks the elder statesman of Mikitivity for his sage response and prays for the wellbeing of the citizens of the backwater of Kivisto.

Margueritaville opposes government for the sake of government. Superfluous supervision should avoided whereever possible as it inevitably leads to incompetent management and corruption **cough**UN**cough** Beaurocracies will eventually decay, spiral out of control and collapse upon themselves in an orgy of unethical decision making and should therefore be opposed whereever not essential.

Margueritaville devoutly believes that truth is revealed in the crucible of the adversarial process.

Any nation without the right to fair representation in an impartial adversarial system should be assisted in obtaining same and not led down the path of death by civil servant. Approving this proposal is enabling. We are not enablers.

In my opinion, the main difference is that the listed occupations are at risk because bad guys are shooting at them; there is little the government can do about it, and the responsible party for the hazards should not be the employer.

Firefighters operate in risky environments, but it is still the duty of the government to make every reasonable effort to ensure they are safe. You cannot blame the fire.


True bad guys may be shooting at them some of the time but should they be left out of protection simply because they are in military or police. Should they not have training and equipment to properly do their jobs under any conditions. The police and military during Katrina were right along beside civilians doing their jobs so should they not have protection or because they are military and police we expect the go into harms way unprotected while we don't send so called 'civilians' without all sorts of protection, training and such that might see them get dirty. Consider that many civilians get paid far more than military and police when they go into a disaster area also they often call on the military and police to support them in their actions so why should the civilians asses be protected better than our police and military. If one gets boats and lifejackets they all should have them. This would exempt providing this for police and military also take equipment from them for civilians while they are being shot at to protect these same civilians.

On the firefighters. They have protective suits and such so say a police officer has to enter a burning building to deal with a sniper, should he not be given the same protective suit as a firefighter might have before he goes in and clears the way for them. This says he don't get it since he's police and it's his duty to take out the sniper even if he may have to go into a buring building.

Is the U.N. O.S.H.A. now? I fully agree that workplace safety is important but the U.N. is NOT the place for this. Every country should enact their own laws and if your country does not feel that another is doing what they should for workers, then boycott them finacially. The U.N. is getting to be Big Brother to independent nations.

I do think there's a little bit of misunderstanding going on here.

I'm sure it's not deliberate, as I know, from my friendly interactions with most of you at the Strangers' Bar, that all UN reps are models of probity, purity and pleasantry who would never attempt selective quotation as a debating tactic.

So I point out to the delegate from Bonhommes that the clauses of which he complains follow Clause 1, which says



The phrases I've emphasised are the ones that leave it up to you whether or not your businesses become babysitters.

You or your courts courts may very well rule that, say, employees should be expected to know that running while holding sharp objects is dangerous and their own common sense, not their employer, should have stopped them.

Or they may hold that a notice saying, "Running with sharp objects may be hazardous to your health!" is all that is needed to 'inform employees as fully as possible of potential hazards' concerning sharp objects.

They might take the view that a more general notice, saying, "Employees are warned that using equipment for any purpose or in any way other than that for which it is designed is dangerous" covers such a situation.

They may think that adding, "and severe penalties for such misuse may ensue" is as reasonable an effort as could be expected to 'ensure' that these things don't happen.

In short, they may well hold that in specific circumstances, in a particular case, employers can comply with the "ensuring" clauses by doing nothing/putting up warning notices/sacking people who disobey warning notices. In other, different cases, they may require different actions before they will consider the employer in compliance.

It's up to you and/or your court system. Anything more, surely, would be micromanagement, which, as we are frequently told, the UN doesn't have time for.
________________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.


With all due respect to the honorable, Co-president of Ardchoille, it is the vagueness of the proposal that we have an issue with. The word ensure has never been used to mean ardently promote or dissuade but rather to make certain of. We do not argue with your intent which we trust is sound, but the wording of the proposal is overbroad as to suggest that the employer is absolutely and always accountable.

The nature of some jobs are unavoidably dangerous and although the phrase " and inform employees as fully as possible of potential standards" is recognized as attempt at at lessening that absolutism of the first part of the article. It is merely an addendum to making the workplace "free from hazards" and does not qualify the previous sentence nor exonerate the employer from making the workplace "free from hazards". A hammer is still a hazard no matter what but it is still a necessary tool that you cannot free the workplace from. Steel workers are presented a hazard from the volative gasses of their blowtorches but, while safe guards can be made they are never utterly free from hazards.

Furthermore, there are no standards of measure as to what would account for reasonably informing an employee. Employers might very well be reluctant to persue a business for fear of running aground with safety hazards. We have no desire so effect such arbitrary and vague standards upon our businesses.

(speaking as Kalibara, my UN nation)

We are pleased and proud to vote for this resolution.

The measures it sets out are clear, fair and reasonable. The workers are the backbone of our nation and ensuring to the highest level possible that they can do their jobs in a safe and healthy atmosphere is vital for our economic security.

Ausserland has voted in favor of this resolution. We consider it reasonable and constructive.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The police and military during Katrina were right along beside civilians doing their jobs so should they not have protection or because they are military and police we expect the go into harms way unprotected while we don't send so called 'civilians'

Upon hearing Zeldon 6229 Nodlez's statement, Ambassador Katzman pulls out a file labeled 'UN labor resolutions' and flips through his notes on several draft proposal debates. After pausing and making a few notes, he then pulls out the United Nations Association binder with a list of all UN resolutions and grabs the Good Samartian Laws resolution. He waits a few minutes listening to other speakers before his turn to address the assembly rolls around again.

"Fellow ambassadors. The subject of military and private sector workplace safety standards were in fact dealt with in both the draft proposal discussions for this particular resolution and the possible replacement proposal for labor unions, which the people from Groot Gouda currently have in the UN proposal queue. In both situtations, it was agreed upon by participants in the UN draft proposal discussions that military work and private sector work are different for a few very good reasons: 1) one of the two fields can be effectively conscripted for national security purposes and, 2) also is easily regulated directly by the government via the political process and executive branch.

Perhaps I should make myself more clear the first point: conscription ... in the event of an emergency, private citizens only respond to crisis as volunteers. International volunteers are already protected by the UN's "Good Samaritan Laws" resolution from October 2004. That resolution called upon UN members to develop laws providing immunity to "volunteer based first responder teams" with conditions in recognition that these people aren't normally paid specifically to respond to these sorts of situations. In many nations, work performed by a regular government employee, including a military conscript, is protected by what can be described as the "deep pockets of government" and the individuals working in this positions enjoy some degree of immunity for their actions. In other words, if a cop accident shoots a boy, in some nations while he could be discharged, the boy's family will likely seek legal action against the government itself, because the cop was an agent of the government.

Now the way governments get people to work as government employees is either by direct conscription (think draft) or by offering nice incentives (such as medical, safe work places, good retirement plans, etc.). Though it is not the scope of any of the current labor related resolutions / proposals to regulate the nature in which nations choose to conscript individuals, it was felt by a number of nations that governments should retain the sovereign right to draft people in the event of an emergency.

As for the second issue, since cooperations are much more fluid and accountible to business owners or stockholders, it was felt that if citizens felt that soldiers, firefighters, or other emergency response personnel weren't being provided safe workplaces, that it would be relatively easy to work within the domestic frameworks of governments to change that. Let's say you want your son, who is serving in the army, to get a bulletproof vest. It is much easier for you as a voter to write both your representative or king and newspapers and ask for that than it is for you to write your daughters private sector boss and ask that her office have reasonable temperatures.

While I understand that in some nations it might be very difficult work within the system to improve the work environment for public service workers ... and I also realize that in some nations, UN resolutions mean squat, and realistically a younge dictator will find some way to weasel out of the good intentions of this resolution ... but my government has never found these as compeling reasons to vote against a resolution which specifically has a good international focus.

In this case, it is much harder for domestic governments to place regulations (with respect to darn near anything) on transnational cooperations, but with this resolution we are placing regulations for workplaces within all UN members ... which means we are also targeting companies from other nations which operate in our borders, and I truely believe that this is the strength of this resolution and a reason to vote in favour of it."

Howie T. Katzman
Confederate City States of Mikitivity

This resolution could really hurt smaller countries that are trying to become or remain competitive in the world market. While this resolution is a great idea for larger nations that can afford it, the less economically powerful or stable nations would have a hard time meeting the demands that are listed (especially creating an "adequately funded governmental body"...what if they don't have an "adequately funded" government to begin with? It could certainly be an issue in the less developed or more anarchist-type nations.)

We must all remember that the "first-world" countries of today all owe their economic (and thus political) stability to an "industrial revolution" of some sort at one time or another. During these economic upheavals, there were many human rights abuses and many harsh working conditions. Eventually, though, the political and economic situation stabilized enough for these nations to address the civil liberties of its working class. Without this relatively short amount of time of economic boom and industrial revolution, these grievances might never have been adressed. Countries are not able to skip this step if they want to become economically stable and prosperous. We must let every country go through the full process of economic development from the ground up, even if it means overlooking some human rights abuses. The developed countries should certainly enact legislation to protect the safety of their workers, because it does reap benefits in the long run, but those developed countries should not keep under-developed countries in the "third world" by forcing them to create costly governmental programs that could undermine their fragile political, social, and economic stability, and keep said countries from competing long-term in an increasingly global market.

Since I've just been poking a little fun at selective quoting, I've obviously made it impossible for myself to pick out specific phrases from the remarks of the Kiroth delegate. So I'll try to address the tenor of his objections, which I take to be twofold.

First, if I understand him correctly, he maintains that the proposal forces employers to provide against every possibility for hazard that might occur, regardless of whether an industry is intrinsically hazardous or not.

Second, he objects to a lack of precision in the wording because standards for what might constitute "reasonably informing" an employee are not defined.

I think the stumbling-block to mutual understanding is the word "reasonable". If your population is largely illiterate, a printed notice would not be a reasonable attempt to inform your workers. If you're a dictator, you may simply state, "Whatever I want, that's what's reasonable."

The word may seem slippery and imprecise, but it does have a history in legal usage in various jurisdictions. Sometimes, particularly when dealing with broad principles, it's just as near as we're going to get without going into tortuous detail. The UN should not be obliged to write every sub-clause of every paragraph of every member nation's laws.

Your courts, or whatever means your nation uses to decide what is acceptable within your culture, are the proper places to work out whether an employer's precautions against injury to his workers are reasonable. Obviously, for example, mining is a dangerous industry. But it is possible to make it as safe as current technology can achieve. Look at the difference in deaths per year in various countries' underground mines *coughChinacough*.

This proposal states the principle -- I think a generally acceptable one -- that a worker shoud not have to expect that he will die at work because of something that a reasonable amount of care by reasonable people could have avoided. It goes on to propose ways of taking reasonable care. It is based on the proposition that everyone, workers and employers alike, has a responsibility to take reasonable care.

It does not rob employers of the right to sack workers who will not take care. It protects the right of workers not to be endangered by the stupidity of their fellows or the cupidity of shareholders. Nations can work out the details themselves.

We in the Democratic Republic of Fratelli, while a new nation, have reservations about this legislation. First, it is overly broad in terms of what it means by having safe work places. One person's safe is another person's dangerous. The UN could come into conflict with many nations that believe they have instituted safe practices but which the UN disagrees with. Also, as a new nation, we feel this could possibly hinder our developing economy by instituting too many new regulations on our businesses. But finally, we forcefully object the the United Nations regulating commerce and worker's rights within independent nations, unless eggregious human rights violations are present.

With all respect, we can not support this legislation.

The newly formed Free Lands of Lungdonia have decided to vote against this draft resolution. We believe in the freedom of all nations of the UN to pass their own laws on workers safety - as we all take part in different economies and develop our own skills we can also develop our own laws in this matter. Lungdonia takes all human rights issues to heart and encourages resolutions of this nature be passed more frequently. Until then, take care of yourself and eachother and may God bless Lungdonia - thank you.

Let's say you want your son, who is serving in the army, to get a bulletproof vest. It is much easier for you as a voter to write both your representative or king and newspapers and ask for that than it is for you to write your daughters private sector boss and ask that her office have reasonable temperatures.


Why should we have to do either here as if it is covered that the daughters private sector boss provide her a safe place to work and proper equipment and such to do her duties then should it not also be required that whatever governments set up say, police, firefighters, and military also be providing them the same things for the duties they may be required to perform? Why should we have to go to anyone to get them for one when it is required for another to have them?

OOC: How many soldiers were killed in Iraq while government debated over getting body armor or armor on vehicles to them. If this proposal is to be fair for all it should include all.. to have proper training and equipment to meet job safety requirements.

Exempting them here opens the door for what happened in Iraq with stuff that should have been provided not getting there until many were not there to use it.

How many body bags can you get for body armor? Suppose they had called in just anyone to the World Trade Center to be police and firefighters.. how many lives would not have been saved? By not reguiring here police and military to have safety issue training and the equipment they need; you give an out for them to not get it when they may need it; and it's too late to give it.

IC: As this proposal is to promote safe work places in member nations for all citizens then exempting any such makes it in a way discriminate against certain groups that should have the same rights as any to a safe work place.. thus nobody should have to get it after it's too late to.

OOC: How many soldiers were killed in Iraq while government debated over getting body armor or armor on vehicles to them. If this proposal is to be fair for all it should include all.. to have proper training and equipment to meet job safety requirements.

Exempting them here opens the door for what happened in Iraq with stuff that should have been provided not getting there until many were not there to use it.Now this is where we need to be careful about spinning off into the real world. Many soldiers in Iraq have body armor but refuse to use it because of both the added weight (ceramic plates are heavy) and the limitations it puts on mobility. I've worn a Kevlar vest (no plates, just the Kevlar), and it's quite heavy and really restricts your movement. This is another case of people not being told the whole story and making assumptions without all the pertinent information.

Much like that flap over armoring(!) LAVs. The 'L' stands for Light. LAVs are useful because they're light and quick. Putting armor on them turns them into death traps because A) they become too slow to move out of the way and B) no amount of bolted armor will make them resistant enough to survive an RPG or land mine; that's what armored units (ie: tanks) are for.

Listen less to politicians trying to score points, and more to soldiers. And remember, one pissed off private on the 11 o'clock news isn't necessarily the voice of all, most, or even many.

This resolution could really hurt smaller countries that are trying to become or remain competitive in the world market. While this resolution is a great idea for larger nations that can afford it, the less economically powerful or stable nations would have a hard time meeting the demands that are listed (especially creating an "adequately funded governmental body"...what if they don't have an "adequately funded" government to begin with? It could certainly be an issue in the less developed or more anarchist-type nations.)
Ecopoeia might accurately be described as an economically developing pseudo-anarchy. Your concerns notwithstanding, we fervently support this bill and contend that the costs involved are not on the damaging scale that you suggest.

We must all remember that the "first-world" countries of today all owe their economic (and thus political) stability to an "industrial revolution" of some sort at one time or another. During these economic upheavals, there were many human rights abuses and many harsh working conditions. Eventually, though, the political and economic situation stabilized enough for these nations to address the civil liberties of its working class. Without this relatively short amount of time of economic boom and industrial revolution, these grievances might never have been adressed. Countries are not able to skip this step if they want to become economically stable and prosperous. We must let every country go through the full process of economic development from the ground up, even if it means overlooking some human rights abuses. The developed countries should certainly enact legislation to protect the safety of their workers, because it does reap benefits in the long run, but those developed countries should not keep under-developed countries in the "third world" by forcing them to create costly governmental programs that could undermine their fragile political, social, and economic stability, and keep said countries from competing long-term in an increasingly global market.
[emphasis mine]

I understand your concerns, but you fall into the common trap of assuming that an industrial 'revolution' is the only possible way for a nation to attain a desirable economic status and, consequently, that civil and political rights are subordinate to economic 'necessities' in the short term.

We take a different view here in Ecopoeia. Putting aside the contentious nature of the term 'industrial revolution' (for many commentators will argue that there was no such thing even where it has been claimed that there was), we choose to measure our nation's health not in GDP or other short-sighted economic indicators, but in happiness and wellbeing. True, we lack economic clout on the world stage, but the UN consistently rates Ecopoeians as among the happiest citizens in the world. We're content to take our time with regards to economic progress; we're short on luxuries but not on necessities. And we are free from state and corporate tyranny.

So, no, no longer will we accept human rights abuses being shown a blind eye. Decades of exploitation and abuse have strengthened our resolve to be always free. The economy is there to serve us; we will not be its slaves.

Please forgive my oblique approach to discussing the resolution at hand; I feel that some background is necessary to aid understanding. In short, we support this welcome legislation that will provide valuable protection to workers. In countries where their rights are already well enshrined, then this resolution will have little effect. In those nations where they are exploited, this is a step towards their emancipation. I hope that it is only one of many steps to come.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

With all due respect to the honourable delegate from Ecopoeia, if you wish to no longer turn the other cheek from human rights abuses, then please, by all means, enact laws in your country to prevent them. But do not tell the rest of us how to run our countries, please. One of the nations in my region regularly eats babies, as they are both their national animal and their currency. i do not think that they would appreciate it if you told them they couldn't do that anymore, as surely being dinner is a hazardous workplace for a baby. No, this is too much an issue that should be dealt with at the national level and not at all an issue that should be dealt with at the international.

Vote nay for violation of sovereignty, vote nay for big brotherism, vote nay for the WSA.

--dunerat

Greetings all,

Our nation is perplexed...
Are some roles of employment by virtue of their nature unavoidably unsafe?

How does one make jobs within the deep uranium mines or similar comply with this piece of Left-wing legislation? Some jobs are always going to be high risk and pay should reflect this. Our country's Adder venom extractors work for the pharmaceuticals industry and are extremely well paid. Unfortunately, the mortality rate for individuals in this line of work is relatively high - it is intrinsically unsafe. The medicines created as a result of the extraction save many, many more lives than are lost and each employee is aware of the risks when they apply for the jobs.

Our people believe that more thought needs to be put into this proposal. In an industrial climate it may prove a success, but it should not receive blanket approval across the UN.

Please think of the smaller nations before you pass this bill. It will harm our economies and force people out of work.

The First Envoy of Outer Bovania.

I would like to state my support for the Workplace Safety Act resolution. We have instructed the Gravelbourg UN Ambassador to vote FOR :) the measure.

It's high time the NS UN established occupational health and safety legislation. The thousands of nations that comprise our UN are linked, not only politically but culturally and economically.

Essentially, this is a workers' rights issue, and thus a human rights issue. People don't necessarily find themselves in the ideal job, but we believe they have the right to a safe workplace.

It is also our belief that safe workplaces make for happier and more productive workers and, ultimately, stronger economies. You can make an argument that that's not so. But that only works in the short term. You may decide not to have safe coal mines or forestry operations or shipyards or even white-collar offices. And you might even make a profit for a while. But over the long term, businesses pay more for replacing and training workers and replacing outdated equipment that has become dangerous through age and disrepair.

We particularly like point 2 in this proposal, which mandates against exposing workers to excessive danger. Some occupations are by nature hazardous (e.g. firefighters, police officers, oil well repair workers, welders, nuclear technicians, etc.) This resolution does not prohibit or ban these jobs, but it insists that in these occupations protocols need to be established that minimize harm to the most reasonable degree possible.

This resolution also avoids micromanaging nations in their workplace practices. Instead, it allows for nations to construct their own national rules and regulations re: workplace safety.

In regards to tools and equipment mandates in this resolution, we find that what is in the proposed Workplace Safety Act resembles laws we see on the books in certain jurisdictions in North America -- even politically conservative jurisdictions.

Gravelbourg believes this is important and necessary legislation. We are pleased to vote :) it.

With all due respect to the honourable delegate from Ecopoeia, if you wish to no longer turn the other cheek from human rights abuses, then please, by all means, enact laws in your country to prevent them. But do not tell the rest of us how to run our countries, please.
With all due respect to the honourable delegate from Dunerat, this is arrant nonsense. Human rights transcend national boundaries. Environmental issues frequently transcend national boundaries. You would have us follow the most ludicrous 'natsov' extremism, where nothing is worthy of legislation if it disturbs your private fiefdom.

I'll repeat for the benefit of my fellow delegates the following comment from the Dunerat delegate, as I think it eloquently sums up the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their position:

One of the nations in my region regularly eats babies, as they are both their national animal and their currency. i do not think that they would appreciate it if you told them they couldn't do that anymore, as surely being dinner is a hazardous workplace for a baby.
LC

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda fully supports this resolution.

Now this is where we need to be careful about spinning off into the real world. Many soldiers in Iraq have body armor but refuse to use it because of both the added weight (ceramic plates are heavy) and the limitations it puts on mobility. I've worn a Kevlar vest (no plates, just the Kevlar), and it's quite heavy and really restricts your movement. This is another case of people not being told the whole story and making assumptions without all the pertinent information.

Much like that flap over armoring(!) LAVs. The 'L' stands for Light. LAVs are useful because they're light and quick. Putting armor on them turns them into death traps because A) they become too slow to move out of the way and B) no amount of bolted armor will make them resistant enough to survive an RPG or land mine; that's what armored units (ie: tanks) are for.

Listen less to politicians trying to score points, and more to soldiers. And remember, one pissed off private on the 11 o'clock news isn't necessarily the voice of all, most, or even many.

OOC: Being a soldier who has worn Kevlar with plates...yes, they're quite heavy, and they retain lots of heat.

In another thread on this resolution, a representative expressed concern about how it would be applied to "inherently dangerous occupations" and provided several examples. We attempted to answer that concern. Since the issue is being raised again in this thread, we thought it might be useful to repeat ourselves.

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 eliminate 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 governments through the courts or enforcement agencies.

The objection has also been raised that the use of the term "reasonable" makes the resolution unacceptably vague and unenforceable. We disagree. The concept of the "reasonable and prudent person" is a long-established principle of tort law used in determination of due care and negligence.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Why should we have to do either here as if it is covered that the daughters private sector boss provide her a safe place to work and proper equipment and such to do her duties then should it not also be required that whatever governments set up say, police, firefighters, and military also be providing them the same things for the duties they may be required to perform? Why should we have to go to anyone to get them for one when it is required for another to have them?


Ambassador,

I apologize for the length of my previous speech, however, I believe I already answered your question. Government employees who enter dangerous / uncertain fields such as police work (1) take those jobs knowing the risks, and (2) government employees work for politicians ... and voters can simply ask their executive (mayor, governor, president, chancellor, etc.) to see to it that public sector work places are protected. In Mikitivity our police are very well paid.

What I didn't point out is that this resolution actually doesn't make a distinction between normal public sector and private sector jobs, it just grants exceptions in a very few cases:

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

So if your concern is that public employees aren't being protected, the resolution actually provides language to afford them the same rights, but there are a few tasks (not offices mind you, but tasks) where it is necessary for certain types of jobs to constantly be put in danger.

The resolution uses the term 'law enforcement and military bodies'. Personally I would have rathered the term simply be 'emergency response personnel', as in regional debates firefighters have already been brought up into the debates.

This is in my opinion a really reasonable resolution. I'm not going to nitpick it, since UN resolutions are but recommendations. It is clear what the spirit of this resolution is, and my government will be happy to promote this resolution in all of Mikitivity's cantons.

Howie T. Katzman

From:deptofstate@gov.baz

We the state department of Blanco Azul, view the measure as a barrier to entry for smaller firms, and yet another disruption of the worker-employer relationship.

While larger firms may be able to implement the actions in question (economy of scale in action), this measure will drive small firms under and discourage entrepreneurs as it would at yet another cost to overcome on the road to profitability. The world needs more firms to both increase competition (which benefits both the consumer and the industry itself) and increase the number of job opportunities for potential workers and a potential workers bargaining power.

The worker and employer not a foreign body, are best able to judge what is and is not safe and resolve necessary safety issues through individual or collective action or agreement.

We will remind the world body that individual and collective drive have done more to benefit humanity and advance the cause of Human rights than any piece of legislation, or government agency. And it is our position that this piece of legislation will be ultimately counter productive.

- Aqil al-Hariri
State Department
Blanco Azul

With all due respect to the honourable delegate from Dunerat, this is arrant nonsense. Human rights transcend national boundaries. Environmental issues frequently transcend national boundaries. You would have us follow the most ludicrous 'natsov' extremism, where nothing is worthy of legislation if it disturbs your private fiefdom.

i disagree, sir. There are many things worth legislating that would intrude upon "my personal fiefdom," as you put it. Many of which we would support whole-heartedly, as we do believe that some things are truly international matters for the community of nations to debate and solve. WOrkplace sfety, however, is not one of them. It's not even a human rights issue. We are not talking about places which randomly gas minority groups, we are talking about private businesses.

i would, for example, support creating an International Standards Organisaztion, whose purpose is to create commonly accepted standards for workplace conditions, among other things. But such standards are, of course, non-binding, much as they are in the RL ISO. Note, however, how the RL ISO standards are actually binding through market pressure (as opposed to law). This i find to be both effective and acceptable from a NatSov standpoint.

Likewise, i would support legislation on topics such as Standardised Treatment of Refugee Populations, Piracy in International Waters/Airspace/Space, and Standardised Exchange Rates. Extremist NatSov positions, i feel, are counterproductive to growth and progress, and nations which truly are that way i should think would not bother to join the UN in the first place.

--dunerat

We have consulted the Squirrels and have formulated this statment:

Why should we create an unnecisary and intrusive agencies to comply with others notions of "Human Rights".

We have little safety regulations requiring only that proper instruction and trianing is given in hazerdous industries. Basket weaving and ladder making do not neccistate safety regulation of any kind. Mining, hard machinery, and arms manufacturing are by thier very nature hazerdous employment ventures and an employee is aware of this if they have common sense.

The careless,, inattentive, or down right dumb do not need protection but instead should fall victim to the laws of Darwinism like all creatures of the world.


So say the Squirrels

I agree completely. I dont want my country being full of retards and cripples just cause some commies want to save people from horrifying workplace incidents. Its only natural to cull the weak to ensure future generation's success.

Catherine MacGuiness, Gejigrad's UN delegate, simply looks around, and blinks several times.

"Why are we even discussing this? Is there a UN nation that doesn't provide this sort of protection? Until such can be proven, I maintain that this is an uneccessary resolution, and that our time here would be better spent talking about other topics, such as Iran's nuclear buildup."

The Plutocracy of the Moravian Counties of the Allied States of BFE requests that member states vote against this proposal. Our government is composed of two branches. The executive branch is made up of the 5 people with the highest net wealth (mostly industrialists- factory owners). And, all 5 of them have denounced this proposal. It will cost far too much money and far too much trouble for factory owners. Workers are indispensable, money is not.

Catherine MacGuiness, Gejigrad's UN delegate, simply looks around, and blinks several times.

"Why are we even discussing this? Is there a UN nation that doesn't provide this sort of protection? Until such can be proven, I maintain that this is an uneccessary resolution, and that our time here would be better spent talking about other topics, such as Iran's nuclear buildup."
*Bob slips a note to Ms. MacGuiness*
"This is not the RL UN."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Senator Sulla looks around the halls and says,
"You know, from the debate so far I can safely say I really don't care one way or another. The Palentine already has laws in place to make the workplace safe, because a dead worker cannot spend any of his hard earned money(capitalism,baby!). So on one hand, this seems like unneeded legislation. However it did get to quorum, so obviously enough poeple seem to care about it. Hmmm, how to resolve the problem."*suddenly gets an evil grin!*"Ahh! its perfect, and downright unscrupolous! The Palentine UN Mission wishes to announce that its votes very negotiable right now, if you catch my drift. We are open for bribes." *Senator Sulla places a huge container on his desk*

Hm. I believe my UN puppet will be voting against this. Nothing personal, but given the IC views of that nation (a bunch of decadant, aristocratic bastards), I can't see them wanting to be forced to care about "workers' rights".

The Republic of Transatia voted against, due to what it considers to be the unfair amount of potential blame on business owners. The wording of the Resolution makes it seem as though an employer could be held responsible for an employee's irresponsible actions, i.e., a foolish employee who incorrectly uses machinery could file complaints against an employer.

Now this is where we need to be careful about spinning off into the real world. Many soldiers in Iraq have body armor but refuse to use it because of both the added weight (ceramic plates are heavy) and the limitations it puts on mobility. I've worn a Kevlar vest (no plates, just the Kevlar), and it's quite heavy and really restricts your movement. This is another case of people not being told the whole story and making assumptions without all the pertinent information.

Much like that flap over armoring(!) LAVs. The 'L' stands for Light. LAVs are useful because they're light and quick. Putting armor on them turns them into death traps because A) they become too slow to move out of the way and B) no amount of bolted armor will make them resistant enough to survive an RPG or land mine; that's what armored units (ie: tanks) are for.

Listen less to politicians trying to score points, and more to soldiers. And remember, one pissed off private on the 11 o'clock news isn't necessarily the voice of all, most, or even many.


It may be true that many didn't want to wear them but how many didn't have that option because they where not provided with them for some reason. Same with the armor for vehicles as watched here in CNN US Senate debating how they would send armor from the states to catch up with vehicles that left the states without it. They had no problem on how to get equipment/vehicle to Iraq but questions where how would they get the armor over there and on the vehicles. One of the problems was instaling it while you were being shoot at. If standards are to be set for anyone as far as saftey then they all should have them applied to them. Support elements in military didn't need body armor or vehicle armor until the nature of the war changed. Under a proposal like one up you let the government get away with such actions as they can send folks in danger zones without proper safety devices while civilians or a few have them. Then in this case the military ends up bare assed and in trouble because they have to go save some civilians who have body armor and vehicle armor because it was required for them as such to have it. Why should a news crew have body armor and armored vehicles better than the troops who have to be there in the war zone? If there employeers can get it for them then government can for the troops and should..... a proposal like this requires it for one and leaves the other bare assed... is this right... Also suppose they didn't train all US military to use say NBC gear or even weapons and sent them over just to cook, heal, and drive water and gas trucks. This opens the door for discrimination on who gets trained and the equipment to do safely certain jobs. Thus it fails to be fair for all the work force of any nation.

I was Combat Support and had officers with attitude that we would not be just Combat because of the Support. This is the attitude some had going into Iraq and thus folks got killed. If the same rules were applied across the board many would still be alive today.

Why should a news crew have body armor and armored vehicles better than the troops who have to be there in the war zone?You honestly need to ask this question?

"Why are we even discussing this? Is there a UN nation that doesn't provide this sort of protection? Until such can be proven, I maintain that this is an uneccessary resolution, and that our time here would be better spent talking about other topics, such as Iran's nuclear buildup."J'accuse (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=ayatollahs_iran)!!

(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.


Based on fact that members of my little group pointed out this part of this proposal we must change our vote and go for it. So we will be voting for this one.... As it leaves us all sorts of options to make our military/police that inspecting body...

having read over the proposal at vote I can announce that we are voting against.

although this ticks most of the boxes its flawed. All the responsibility seems to lie with management and none with the employee.

Workplace safety is a two way street and not a micromanaged nanny state off affairs. employees have responsibilities to use machinery properly as well as the right to a safe working environment.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

having read over the proposal at vote I can announce that we are voting against.
Good choice. Those Yeldans are batshit insane, plus they were probably drunk when they wrote it.

Since I've just been poking a little fun at selective quoting, I've obviously made it impossible for myself to pick out specific phrases from the remarks of the Kiroth delegate. So I'll try to address the tenor of his objections, which I take to be twofold.

First, if I understand him correctly, he maintains that the proposal forces employers to provide against every possibility for hazard that might occur, regardless of whether an industry is intrinsically hazardous or not.

Second, he objects to a lack of precision in the wording because standards for what might constitute "reasonably informing" an employee are not defined.

I think the stumbling-block to mutual understanding is the word "reasonable". If your population is largely illiterate, a printed notice would not be a reasonable attempt to inform your workers. If you're a dictator, you may simply state, "Whatever I want, that's what's reasonable."

The word may seem slippery and imprecise, but it does have a history in legal usage in various jurisdictions. Sometimes, particularly when dealing with broad principles, it's just as near as we're going to get without going into tortuous detail. The UN should not be obliged to write every sub-clause of every paragraph of every member nation's laws.

Your courts, or whatever means your nation uses to decide what is acceptable within your culture, are the proper places to work out whether an employer's precautions against injury to his workers are reasonable. Obviously, for example, mining is a dangerous industry. But it is possible to make it as safe as current technology can achieve. Look at the difference in deaths per year in various countries' underground mines *coughChinacough*.

This proposal states the principle -- I think a generally acceptable one -- that a worker shoud not have to expect that he will die at work because of something that a reasonable amount of care by reasonable people could have avoided. It goes on to propose ways of taking reasonable care. It is based on the proposition that everyone, workers and employers alike, has a responsibility to take reasonable care.

It does not rob employers of the right to sack workers who will not take care. It protects the right of workers not to be endangered by the stupidity of their fellows or the cupidity of shareholders. Nations can work out the details themselves.


I might argue that while the principle is legal the wording is not and mandates that the employer must reasonable make efforts to ensure which is to make certain that the work place is "free from hazard" it does not say reasonably free from hazard or make a serious effort to be free of undue hazard. It says simply and absolutely "free from hazard" which is incredbily broad an overarching statement which subjugates employers to unfairly.

The stance I took was against. The main reason for this was because it is trying to ban workplaces that are considered 'unsafe'. There is no true saftey, and this proposal wishes to rid countries of their economic rights.

For example, my country has a large uraniumn deposit that we are currently mining. Uraniumn is highly dangerous but profitable, should we stop because of the risk of someone getting cancer? No. Another is that we have a large Amrms industry. If there is a fire in a plant then the entire plant could explode. However these people chose to work there, it is part of the risk they take simply for living.

The Government of Carryland has voted against this resolution as it direcly affects small and larger firms output decision and impinges on our economy.

We also believe that the proposal does not go far enough in protecting workers rights.



Paul Knopfler,
Secretary for Labour
Carryland:mad:

I have a guestion on this one being an ammendment effort on this resolution already on the books.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6
End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous
Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.
Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:
- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

In that it in parts is ammending the part of this one that reads: 'The right to bodily safety from one's emplyer'.. as parts of this proposal deals with such things as this if you look at it..... as protecting employees from their employeer.. only when R6 is repealed then they will all become slaves not emplyees so this one will not apply to them..

With luck R6 will be apealed and thus this would be mute but still if R6 is in place then I ask about this current one as a partial ammendment to that part of R6.. Wait what am I saying repeal R6 make them all slaves then it don't matter if you pass this one as slaves are not employees.

J'accuse (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_nation/nation=ayatollahs_iran)!!
Ah, one of the more eccentric members of our region...

i disagree, sir.
Madam, if you please.

There are many things worth legislating that would intrude upon "my personal fiefdom," as you put it. Many of which we would support whole-heartedly, as we do believe that some things are truly international matters for the community of nations to debate and solve. WOrkplace sfety, however, is not one of them. It's not even a human rights issue. We are not talking about places which randomly gas minority groups, we are talking about private businesses.
Not necessarily, this affects private and public industries. But anyway, my scorn was reserved not so much for your opposition to this resolution - I disagree with but understand your perspective - but your seeming contention that the UN should never legislate, even where a nation is slaying its progeny for food. Since, thankfully, you have now backed down from this absurdist stance, I retract that portion of my criticism.

The Government of Carryland has voted against this resolution as it direcly affects small and larger firms output decision and impinges on our economy.

We also believe that the proposal does not go far enough in protecting workers rights.
There's no pleasing some people...

LC (Ms)

Madam, if you please.
Indeed, my appologies, madam.
Not necessarily, this affects private and public industries. But anyway, my scorn was reserved not so much for your opposition to this resolution - I disagree with but understand your perspective - but your seeming contention that the UN should never legislate, even where a nation is slaying its progeny for food. Since, thankfully, you have now backed down from this absurdist stance, I retract that portion of my criticism.
While i do not exactly agree with my fellow regionalist's stance on babies, i understand that he has something of a population problem. Apparently they were close to being overrun with babies, and the export market seems to be a bit slow this time of year....

--dunerat

While i do not exactly agree with my fellow regionalist's stance on babies, i understand that he has something of a population problem. Apparently they were close to being overrun with babies, and the export market seems to be a bit slow this time of year....
OOC: Heheh. Nice!

The Holy Empire Of Pagantonia is fully in support of this proposal, though expects it to be withdrawn in the future over wording.

An injured citizen cannot contribute to the greater good of our nation nor serve their nations fine military service. We refuse to allow the evil all pervasive corporations profit at our own citizens cost... that's our job.

No Bribes?:p

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

You cannot guarantee anything by a suggestion....

ENACTS the following:

(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.


What? Creates, then backs it up? Accomplish this, then guarantees?
How can you guarantee something you've already accomplished?
What is this going to do by allowing it to pass? Absolutely nothing, in 3 months it will be repealed, and all the paperwork it created will have wasted an entire tree of it's life!

So this proposal suggesting the UN sugggest something to us, is useless and should be recycled for the next piece of trash legislation to be thrown at us.

There are no repercussions.

I emplore all nations to read this piece of hopefully recycled attempt at niceness and see there is no reason it should pass.

I know most nations read the title, and think hmm that sounds nice, or boo that stinks, and vote accordingly. There are what 10,000 votes, and 80 responses.......

What happens in a communist state like the Democratic Republic of North Western Eurasia (DRNWE), where the government is effectively the employer, in fact in a purer sense, the WORKERS are actually the employers? Who is then responsible for the actions. The courts are effectively controlled by the Government, so therefore are most likely to vote in favour of the Government.

In fact the whole issue throws this entire situation into Limbo.

No Bribes?:p

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
My government is prepared to offer Sen. Sulla a lifetime supply of Fine Yeldan Ales™ (we also have a lager that's very similar to Iron City:) ) in exchange for his voting for the Workplace Safety Act.

You cannot guarantee anything by a suggestion....

(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.

What? Creates, then backs it up? Accomplish this, then guarantees?
How can you guarantee something you've already accomplished?
What is this going to do by allowing it to pass? Absolutely nothing, in 3 months it will be repealed, and all the paperwork it created will have wasted an entire tree of it's life!

So this proposal suggesting the UN sugggest something to us, is useless and should be recycled for the next piece of trash legislation to be thrown at us.

There are no repercussions.

I emplore all nations to read this piece of hopefully recycled attempt at niceness and see there is no reason it should pass.

I know most nations read the title, and think hmm that sounds nice, or boo that stinks, and vote accordingly. There are what 10,000 votes, and 80 responses.......

Fascinating. The representative of Naviblah picks out one of ten clauses of the proposal, claims that it would be ineffective, then contends that it means the whole proposal is ineffective. We can't help but wonder if he (1) didn't bother to carefully read the rest of the proposal, (2) doesn't understand the words "shall" and "must", or (3) has deliberately chosen to mislead other members with this warped pseudo-logic. Or was he just too busy sneering to bother with proper, reasoned argument?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

My government, on the other hand, is prepared to offer Senator Sulla a year's worth of free vouchers redeemable for any of the services and products provided by Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. to keep his vote a no.

All these bribes for Senator Sulla are nothing more than mere child's play. I suggest he vote for because if he doesn't funny things will happen to his account over at the NSO forums.;)

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

My government, on the other hand, is prepared to offer Senator Sulla a year's worth of free vouchers redeemable for any of the services and products provided by Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. to keep his vote a no.

Sold! Jack Riley told me some stories that kept me awake for a week about the CPESL workers. Besides I need a factfinding junket...err...investigation on the safe workplace conditions of the ladies.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Sold! Jack Riley told me some stories that kept me awake for a week about the CPESL workers. Besides I need a factfinding junket...err...investigation on the safe workplace conditions of the ladies.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Beware. There is more to the CPESL than meets the eye. They are all evil spies who will steal all your state secrets. But don't tell anyone, because they are also trained assassins. I am putting myself in great danger for writing this.

The following is a statement issued by Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd:

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

Attorneys for Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (CPESL) have discovered some troubling language in this proposal.

The definition of a "workplace as any site at which employees are engaged to perform are carried out." This would include not only offices, factories, retail outlets, etc., but also private homes to which employees might be sent to perform their work. Such cases would include, for example, plumbers sent to fix a toilet in someone's house, a nurse sent to check in on an invalid patient, and yes, even CPESL servicewomen who routinely provide their services in the private homes of their clients. This definition makes it practically, if not completely impossible to comply with two of the mandates of the proposal and raises two critical questions.

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

How is CPESL expected to maintain the condition of the private homes of its clients?

(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.

Are we expected to make regular inspections of all of the private homes of our clients as well?

These problems with the resolution concern us at CPESL greatly, as it will force us to spend huge amounts of resources, both in finances and manpower, to comply with the proposal's mandate that we inspect and maintain the private homes of our more than 10 billion clients worldwide.

Thus, we must urge all delegates to vote against this proposal.

Cordially,
Sheik Eralc bin Cluich
Chief Executive Officer
Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd.

As Supreme Chancellor of The Confederacy of People in Scottland, I have urged my government to take support in this act. We need to once and for all, stop risking peoples lives because of lack of regulations in the work place...

The following is a statement issued by Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd:

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

Attorneys for Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (CPESL) has discovered some troubling language in this proposal.

The definition of a "workplace as any site at which employees are engaged to perform are carried out." This would include not only offices, factories, retail outlets, etc., but also private homes to which employees might be sent to perform their work. Such cases would include, for example, plumbers sent to fix a toilet in someone's house, a nurse sent to check in on an invalid patient, and yes, even CPESL servicewomen who routinely provide their service's in the private homes of their clients.

Are you sure about that?

Common custom provides that "a workplace" is not a client's home or office. It is, rather, the office, shop, warehouse, examining clinic, or similar venue belonging to the employer. To illustrate the prevalence of this custom, I cite the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States of America. They do not inspect, for example, private homes whose owners list them for sale and ask an estate agent to assist them in marketing their homes. Unhappily, estate agents often walk into deadly traps when they enter private homes whose owners intend murder and mayhem. But that is a police matter, not a workplace inspection matter.

I see nothing in this resolution that would be any more onerous than the current OSHA regime in the United States. And therefore I see nothing in this resolution that actually says, or implies, by any reasonable standard whatsoever, that national offices of occupational health and safety would have to inspect clients' homes or offices as part of their mandate.

Temlakos
Senior Consul
Commonwealth of Greater Roanoke

OOC: I'm gonna handle all of this OOC, mostly cuz I'm feeling a bit lazy.

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

Common custom provides that "a workplace" is not a client's home or office. It is, rather, the office, shop, warehouse, examining clinic, or similar venue belonging to the employer.

I wasn't not talking about common custom. "Workplace" is defined in the proposal precisely as I described.

To illustrate the prevalence of this custom, I cite the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States of America. They do not inspect, for example, private homes whose owners list them for sale and ask an estate agent to assist them in marketing their homes. Unhappily, estate agents often walk into deadly traps when they enter private homes whose owners intend murder and mayhem. But that is a police matter, not a workplace inspection matter.

The prevalance of the custom is irrelevant, because (a) I was talking about the text of the proposal, which defines "workplace," and (b) because NS is not the real world.

I see nothing in this resolution that would be any more onerous than the current OSHA regime in the United States. And therefore I see nothing in this resolution that actually says, or implies, by any reasonable standard whatsoever, that national offices of occupational health and safety would have to inspect clients' homes or offices as part of their mandate.

1. It's not a resolution; it's a proposal.

2. OSHA matters not one iota here.

3. Read the bloody proposal. Read my post. Oh, and read the rules of NS.

How am I supposed to comply with this unless I just redefine everything? My nation is founded on being unsafe :D

<snip>
These problems with the resolution concern us at CPESL greatly, as it will force us to spend huge amounts of resources, both in finances and manpower, to comply with the proposal's mandate that we inspect and maintain the private homes of our more than 10 billion clients worldwide.


Although I have already spoken on this resolution, my government has asked me to clarify certain matters raised by one of the Sheiks ben Cluich -- I believe it was Sheik Elrac, not Sheik Nadreb?

My government, like many another, has been unable to ascertain exactly where CPESL ends and your Government begins. We therefore draw to you attention the following scenarios postulated by our advisors:

THAT the Cluichistani government employs CPESL. In that case, the Government, as employer, may be obliged to inspect CPESL's 'workplace', which is to say, its headquarters. Ardchoille has received information that a large amount of dangerous material is stored in potentially unsafe conditions in your files. We therefore call on the Cluichistani government to act immediately to resolve this situation.

THAT CPESL acts as a contractor and your 'employees' are, in fact, sub-contractors. Thus the individuals who use CPESL's services are your employers and consequently required to ensure that you have a safe workplace. Certain citizens of Ardchoille who have employed CPESL, wishing to avoid the repreated disruption that inspections by individuals might cause, have asked their government to act on their behalf. The Government of Ardchoille therefore seeks to inspect your workplace, ie, your headquarters and other operations, for possible hazards. We recommend this course to the governments of other nations whose citizens have employed CPESL. We feel we have a moral obligation to ensure that our employees are not exposed to avoidable hazards.

THAT, in certain circumstances which I would prefer not to clarify before this august but in some cases under-aged body, your personnel's 'workplace' may be regarded as inseparably linked to the worker him- or her-self. In a public-spirited gesture of which we are justifiably proud, the entire adult population of Ardchoille has volunteered to carry out workplace inspections free of charge.

_________________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

How am I supposed to comply with this unless I just redefine everything? My nation is founded on being unsafe :D

Good, we will invade you next -- just to ensure your people's safety, of course.

Garbeeristan's position is that this resolution poses an unacceptable burden on the private sector. The requirement to protect employees from every foreseeable risk is an undue burden on the private sector and interferes with the relationship between capital and labor.

While the resolution pursues a noble goal, the general nature of the document leaves it open to mis-interpretation.

If a job appears to be a dangerous risk, look for a different job.

OOC: I would like to thank Cluichstan and Ardchoille for bringing some much needed humour into this forum. :D

Our esteemed colleague Sheik Elarc has already pointed out that this is currently a proposal, not a resolution. It will only be a resolution after it is approved by a majority of UN nations. I apologise for misleadingly using the term 'resolution' in my earlier comments, and can only plead that, as a senior witch, I am occasionally subject to minor prophetic incidents.

Now, on the point made by our equally esteemed colleague from Garbeeristan, I would like to clarify a matter that has been raised repeatedly and mistakenly.

Under the proposed legislation, the employer is not required to protect the employee from 'every forseeable risk'. The employer is required to 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'.

Reasonable effort! Reasonable effort! For Herself's sake, will you read the words! Reasonable effort!

*Looks embarrassed* I'm sorry, I apologise for bringing religion into this debate.

To resume, the employer is required to take reasonable care. So is the employee. If the employee will not take reasonable care, the employer can and should sack him, because he is putting his own and others' lives at risk.

Should any organisation insist on his reinstatement, the employer can point to this proposal and say that he was doing what the UN requires him to do. Clause 6, particularly, protects the employer in such circumstances. If he has made "every reasonable effort" to comply, no more can be asked of him.

So get your governments or your courts or your people's collectives or your dictators or your patricians or your third cousin's aged mother-in-law -- whoever runs the place -- to define what, in your particular nation, in your particular circumstances, constitutes reasonable effort! That's your job, after this proposal passes! Do we have to do everything for you? (Thumps lectern)

Sorry.

It is easy, for rhetorical purposes, to paint a picture of a poor, frazzled employer scurrying about his company bent double under a load of paper and clipboards as he tries personally to ensure that every last little legally-required detail is taken care of for every employee.

It is equally easy to paint a picture of a noble, upstanding worker constantly thwarted in his attempts to bring home the meagre amount that he needs to help his eager and intelligent family survive in a harsh world where the evil bosses attempt to wring the last drop of labour from his wasted muscles while deliberately exposing him and the community to death and disease.

But these are rhetorical stances. Rhetoric doesn't turn up for work. Rhetoric doesn't run a factory. People do, and this proposal is an attempt to make turning up for work, and running a factory, safe and even rewarding for all the people involved.

Which is why, yet again, I urge you to vote for it.
________________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille

Edit: I thank the representative from Fonzoland for his remarks, but assure him our public servants do not have a sense of humour.

Safety in the workplace is important. How would you feel if you got seriously injured (or someone you know got KILLED) at work? In the intrests of safety for all, I vote "For".

Safety in the workplace is important. How would you feel if you got seriously injured (or someone you know got KILLED) at work?

I'd feel about the same as if I was injured in any other public place...:D

Although I have already spoken on this resolution, my government has asked me to clarify certain matters raised by one of the Sheiks ben Cluich -- I believe it was Sheik Elrac, not Sheik Nadreb?

I wish first to correct the esteemed representative of Ardchoille on the pronunciation of certain Cluichstani names. Sheik Eralc bin Cluich is the CEO of Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. I am Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich.

My government, like many another, has been unable to ascertain exactly where CPESL ends and your Government begins. We therefore draw to you attention the following scenarios postulated by our advisors:

Before continuing with our response, we must point out that these are mere postulations on the part of the representative of Ardchoille.

THAT the Cluichistani government employs CPESL. In that case, the Government, as employer, may be obliged to inspect CPESL's 'workplace', which is to say, its headquarters. Ardchoille has received information that a large amount of dangerous material is stored in potentially unsafe conditions in your files. We therefore call on the Cluichistani government to act immediately to resolve this situation.

We categorically deny any employment of CPESL, and while we doubt the reliability of any information that Ardchoille may have "obtained," we assure this body that we will most certainly dispatch Cluichstani Investigative Bureau agents to look into these accusations.

THAT CPESL acts as a contractor and your 'employees' are, in fact, sub-contractors. Thus the individuals who use CPESL's services are your employers and consequently required to ensure that you have a safe workplace.

Any contracting of CPESL employees by Cluichstani government officials (and I, of course, have never been one such official) was done solely by said officials on their own personal time and, thus, does not represent the Cluichstani government.

Certain citizens of Ardchoille who have employed CPESL, wishing to avoid the repreated disruption that inspections by individuals might cause, have asked their government to act on their behalf. The Government of Ardchoille therefore seeks to inspect your workplace, ie, your headquarters and other operations, for possible hazards. We recommend this course to the governments of other nations whose citizens have employed CPESL. We feel we have a moral obligation to ensure that our employees are not exposed to avoidable hazards.

Other nations are more than welcome to do so once CPESL sets up offices in other nations, but as of yet CPESL offices are located only in Cluichstan. Thus, the Cluichstani government cannot allow such inspections.

THAT, in certain circumstances which I would prefer not to clarify before this august but in some cases under-aged body, your personnel's 'workplace' may be regarded as inseparably linked to the worker him- or her-self. In a public-spirited gesture of which we are justifiably proud, the entire adult population of Ardchoille has volunteered to carry out workplace inspections free of charge.

I have no doubt that CPESL would welcome a visit from the entire adult population of Ardchoille, though whether those volunteers will have to pay for their visits will, of course, be left up to CPESL.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Farther Vartakia, as the Delegate from the Kuril Island States, utterly rejects the need or right of the United Nations to legislate on such an omnipresent scale as is reflected in this latest measure. The United Nations needs to recognize the range of cultural views that make up its collective being, as well as the will of the large minorities that often oppose its measures. While it is always possible for such nations who feel that the UN doesn't represent their societal values/interests to leave the organization, any major adoption of this strategy would delegitimize the UN by forcing out major portions of its membership. The object of over-arching organizations should not be to impose the will of the majority on the minority (see Federalist No. 10 by James Madison), but to reach compromise in order to harbor good feeling and friendship between its constituent parts. For these reasons, Farther Vartakia has elected to vote against the current measure, and urges all others to do the same.

Good, we will invade you next -- just to ensure your people's safety, of course.

My people will get very angry at you. Safety is for pussies.

That wouldn't be very safe of you anyway, foreigners cannot find food in our environment.... only the strong herein survive :D

My concern is economic. My country is a capitilist merit-based competitive system, except we offer huge social benefits. This means that the government is forced to tightly administer every penny. There is always a danger that either 1) taxes will have to be raised and harm the economy; or 2) government expenditures will fail to meet our goals of service and society will collapse. Our society already offers an expansive regimen of pro-worker laws, and mostly I'd be inclined to support this resolution because it would force others to conform to our quality of life standards, and thus create a cost-equality in the global marketplace. However, I have two concerns: 1) Since I already have a regimen for enforcing labor laws, won't this proposal force me to spend money reduplicating the administration of these laws so as to conform with UN specifications? 2) I wonder how vague terms like "excessive danger" and "every responsible effort" differ from a phrase such as "all people are created equal." With the latter phrase, it is an ideal to which my society is committed; however, were such a phrase put into law, the litigation would be disastrous, as everyone who could show some sense in which they were unequal could sue. With the former phrases my society too is committed; however, are these not infinite goals?
I could go either way.

[ 1) Since I already have a regimen for enforcing labor laws, won't this proposal force me to spend money reduplicating the administration of these laws so as to conform with UN specifications?

Pardon, my Chief Legal Scholar has explained to me how this is not a serious concern -- is a misinterpretation of the proposal -- and I withdraw this part of my query.

In the absence of my nation's co-President, Ms Reilly, may I attempt to clarify these matters for the delegate from Creechmark?

First, let me congratulate the legal advisors of Creechmark on their prudence and astuteness. I assume they have explained that if a country already has an internal body providing 'a regimen for enforcing labor laws', as your wise nation does, the proposal does not require it to create another.

The question of what is 'reasonable', as in the phrase 'every reasonable effort' (not responsible) is left to each member nation to determine in detail. The use of 'reasonable' has a long history in many different jurisdictions. Your colleague Mr Olembe, Ausserland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, discussed the subject in some detail earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10435711&postcount=56).

As to 'excessive' danger, a dictionary definition is that "excessive implies an amount or degree too great to be reasonable or acceptable". For example, a miner knows that it is dangerous to work in a mine. To a degree, he and his employer accept that, where the workplace is a mine, danger is the norm. But for the employer to require him to use a naked flame in a gas-filled mine would be to expose the worker to excessive danger: danger beyond the norm.
Thus, 'excessive' is only as vague as your nation's legislators desire it to be. If your labor laws already define what is normal level of risk in a workplace, you will require little more than a procedural sub-paragraph to add a definition of "excessive".

(John McGonagle, Secretary for Situations Like This)

(John McGonagle, Secretary for Situations Like This)


OOC: That's a nice job-title... :)

My people will get very angry at you. Safety is for pussies.

That wouldn't be very safe of you anyway, foreigners cannot find food in our environment.... only the strong herein survive :D

No worries. Our logistical lines are perfectly capable of providing for our forces. As for your people, well...they will be...pacified...

The workplace safety act has almost the EXACT regulations as the organization here in America known as OSHA(Occupational safety and health admin). You can check it out at www.osha.gov

It's been a very beneficial organization for workers in the US. So I'm deff. voting FOR this act.

The workplace safety act has almost the EXACT regulations as the organization here in America known as OSHA(Occupational safety and health admin). You can check it out at www.osha.gov

It's been a very beneficial organization for workers in the US. So I'm deff. voting FOR this act.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/thenotthesamecard.jpg

This resolution is strong, but fair. It leaves plenty of exceptions for more dangerous jobs, as it should. For instance, mining cannot be completely safe, but it can be safer. The proposal at issue would ensure such a reasonable standard.

The only reason i have voted against the workplace safety act is because what about jobs that put you in direct danger such as a security jobs or body guards. Wouldnt this act make some jobs like that illegal or allow them to file for hefty lawsuites?

For the last time, the lawsuit threat is moot. There will be as many or as little lawsuits as your national implementation of the resolution allows. You get to define what is excessive danger, reasonable precautions, etc.

The only reason i have voted against the workplace safety act is because what about jobs that put you in direct danger such as a security jobs or body guards. Wouldnt this act make some jobs like that illegal or allow them to file for hefty lawsuites?

No, because employers are required to inform employees of all potential hazards. Just as the real life organization OSHA does.. Just so you know, this act was almost completely copy/pasted from an OSHA guidelines book. www.osha.gov

No, because employers are required to inform employees of all potential hazards. Just as the real life organization OSHA does.. Just so you know, this act was almost completely copy/pasted from an OSHA guidelines book. www.osha.gov

I see.. thank yeh

Yesy yes yes, you could look at this as a financial situation, but lets think about the person. A man works at a large company making larger items, man gets crushed by large items, mans family has no income, more homeless. Super! Now maby its a double income family, why should we care then? Well, the family could endure mental tramua, and why do you think its a double income family? Mmmmm...

Because of taxes
Because of over priced items
Because we don't give a hoot

Lets give a hoot, vote yes...

(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.

Good, except for the fact that a "potential hazard" can be quite the subjective term. In the end, what is acceptable in some societies will not be acceptable in all societies.

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

Again, see above.

(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.

Again, very subjective because it does not specify how often these inspections are to take place and by what method.

(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.

Again, because of the subjectivity this section really doesn't hold much ground.

(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.

This is one of the articles that really gets to me. It makes the employer responsible for the health of his employees. This really interferes with free-market economics

(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.

Under section 8, If an employee is drinking or smoking marijuana on the job then the employer is at fault? That article alone is enough to make me vote against it.

(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.

This is one of the articles that really gets to me. It makes the employer responsible for the health of his employees. This really interferes with free-market economics

In no way does this clause make the employer responsible for the "health" of his or her employees. It simply requires the employer to provide tools and equipment that are not defective to the degree that they are hazardous and ensure that they are maintained to conform to safety standards.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Excerpt from Official Document passed in Legislative Branch of Moravian Counties sent to the UN ambassador of the Moravian Counties:

...Workers deserve no rights. The Business is more important than the worker. If these liberal nations want to have better economies, they can encourage procreation and get a larger workforce, like we have. Vote against the resolution currently at vote. Half of our population is unemployed, so if a worker dies, there are still 1 billion people to fill his place. Do all that you can to prevent this resolution from passing.

While I acknowledge that workplace safety should be treated as a concern of high priotity...... Section (10) concerns me with the loose remark of "Adequately funded governmental bodies". I cannot begin to imagine the costs involved with "adequately funding" an organization to monitor workplace safety issues in any medium to large economy. I feel that section (10) needs to be removed or rewritten to recommend such an organization where economically feasible.
Thanks
AoD (Angel_of_Despair) :rolleyes:

Having read back a couple pages I just wanted to add that an employer cannot KNOWINGLY allow a person who is intoxicated to perform their job duties. Often the phrasing of rules and regs is such that an employer, upon becoming aware of a situation, MUST at that time take whatever "correcrive action" that might be applicable to rectify a particular situation.
Thanks
AoD

No, because employers are required to inform employees of all potential hazards. Just as the real life organization OSHA does.. Just so you know, this act was almost completely copy/pasted from an OSHA guidelines book. www.osha.gov

OOC: Screw the OSHA shite. Just knock it off. Nobody cares. NS is not RL.

In the absence of my nation's co-President, Ms Reilly, may I attempt to clarify these matters for the delegate from Creechmark?

First, let me congratulate the legal advisors of Creechmark on their prudence and astuteness. I assume they have explained that if a country already has an internal body providing 'a regimen for enforcing labor laws', as your wise nation does, the proposal does not require it to create another.

The question of what is 'reasonable', as in the phrase 'every reasonable effort' (not responsible) is left to each member nation to determine in detail. The use of 'reasonable' has a long history in many different jurisdictions. Your colleague Mr Olembe, Ausserland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, discussed the subject in some detail earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10435711&postcount=56).

As to 'excessive' danger, a dictionary definition is that "excessive implies an amount or degree too great to be reasonable or acceptable". For example, a miner knows that it is dangerous to work in a mine. To a degree, he and his employer accept that, where the workplace is a mine, danger is the norm. But for the employer to require him to use a naked flame in a gas-filled mine would be to expose the worker to excessive danger: danger beyond the norm.
Thus, 'excessive' is only as vague as your nation's legislators desire it to be. If your labor laws already define what is normal level of risk in a workplace, you will require little more than a procedural sub-paragraph to add a definition of "excessive".

(John McGonagle, Secretary for Situations Like This)


My legal folks assure me that my nation has a fine constitutional history of interpreting vague legal edicts in a manner that best conforms to the realities of the time. I strongly support the spirit of these laws -- largely because it is an issue that I can use in my reelection effort. Good job making your case. I VOTE FOR.

Although Cluichstan is a member of the UN Old Guard, we would like to point out that, contrary to the co-author credit in the text of this proposal, we oppose the Workplace Safety Act and are disappointed that we have been lumped in, without our consent, with those who support such micromanagement by the UN.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Although Cluichstan is a member of the UN Old Guard, we would like to point out that, contrary to the co-author credit in the text of this proposal, we oppose the Workplace Safety Act and are disappointed that we have been lumped in, without our consent, with those who support such micromanagement by the UN.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
OOC: The co-author of record is The Community of UNOG (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=UNOG). Had I been able to, I would have listed Ardchoille and _Myopia_ as co-authors. But two co-authors are not allowed, so the nation "UNOG" was created to serve as co-author. You know this. Why didn't you speak up before it was submitted? I would have been happy to change it.

Before I begin to deal with matters raised in debate, I must thank Mr McGonagle for intervening to give me time to drop in to the Strangers' Bar. Otherwise I might well have begun trying to turn fellow UN delegates into doughnuts, on the basis that, like doughnuts, they go round and round an empty centre.

However, that is not the case with the delegate from Creechmark, who got the point immediately. "My legal folks assure me that my nation has a fine constitutional history of interpreting vague legal edicts in a manner that best conforms to the realities of the time," he said, and I commend his insight, applaud his flexibility and wish him the best of luck in his electioneering. I trust that the intelligent, comely and well-informed populace of his admirable nation will again endorse the candidacy of so talented and devoted a representative, and no, I don't mind if you quote that in your advertising.

Perhaps the delegate from 511LaFarge might benefit from a chat with Creechmark's rep? Mr Olembe has dealt with most of the points that speaker raised, so I will concentrate on this:

If an employee is drinking or smoking marijuana on the job then the employer is at fault?

Only if he knowingly allows the employee to continue 'on the job'. If he does, then he is not making "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". A drunk, stoned employee is a hazard ... in most professions, anyway.

I am surprised but gratified to hear from the delegate from Freedomsia that this proposal is a cut-and-paste from some other country's legislation. Surprised, because the nights I spent in the basement of the UN building arguing with Yelda, Myopia and the cockroaches over the wording of the clauses were apparently unnecessary; and gratified, because it shows that when reasonable people get together to think of reasonable solutions to the problems of workplace safety, they tend to come up with similar reasonable answers.

I come yet again to the complaint that this proposal is general. My answer is: Yes!. Yes, you've got it! Yes, it is! It is general so that individual nations can adapt details to suit their national circumstances while adhering to the general tenor of the proposal.

Look, let's try an analogy. Suppose you've got a coathanger. You can hang an evening dress on it, or an old tweed jacket, or a purple satin clown suit with pink maribou trimmings and sequinned accents, but the coathanger stays the same shape. This proposal is the coathanger, what you hang on it is your choice.

I can only hope it will be as well-tailored as we've tried to make this proposal.

...Workers deserve no rights. The Business is more important than the worker. If these liberal nations want to have better economies, they can encourage procreation and get a larger workforce, like we have. Vote against the resolution currently at vote. Half of our population is unemployed, so if a worker dies, there are still 1 billion people to fill his place. Do all that you can to prevent this resolution from passing.

Thank you. Nations like yours make it a joy to vote FOR this resolution. In fact, you make the case much more clearly than I could ever hope to.

Indeed. The Moravian Counties, that's just... wrong. Totally.

OOC: The co-author of record is The Community of UNOG (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=UNOG). Had I been able to, I would have listed Ardchoille and _Myopia_ as co-authors. But two co-authors are not allowed, so the nation "UNOG" was created to serve as co-author. You know this. Why didn't you speak up before it was submitted? I would have been happy to change it.

OOC: I made my dissatisfaction with this proposal clear on the UNOG forums before it was submitted. I was ignored.

OOC: I made my dissatisfaction with this proposal clear on the UNOG forums before it was submitted. I was ignored.
What I meant was, I would have changed the co-author if you had asked.

What I meant was, I would have changed the co-author if you had asked.

OOC: Let's take this off the UN forum, shall we? Nogger PMs perhaps?

OOC: Let's take this off the UN forum, shall we? Nogger PMs perhaps?
Sure.

Not a matter for the UN. Sorry, but Balsack does not agree with this resolution. It's ok to recommend something like this, but defining how it should be handled is completely an internal issue. The UN is quickly becoming a world government. We will not abide by this decision if passed, even if it means resigning from the UN>
We have much higher standards than any other organization can legislate, and will not be held to standards which do not meet our approval.

The Most Serene Republic of Balsack is quite distressed that the members of the UN have lost sight of the reason for their existence. The UN is meant to deal with matters which are between nations, and not legislate how member nations deal with internal issues.
This body is trying to become a world government.
Balsack has brought this matter up on several occasions, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Several member nations wish only to make other nations in their own molds.
For this reason, Balsack has decided to resign from this less than august body, in favor of dealing with its own issues independently. We recommend that all other nations do the same.

*Sigh* Sir Edmund, defining how it is handled IS to be done internally -- or, to put it the way I put it seven hours ago, which for some reason is beginning to seem like a lifetime, "It is general so that individual nations can adapt details to suit their national circumstances while adhering to the general tenor of the proposal."

I am delighted that the working people of Balsack enjoy such sky-scrapingly high standards, and assure you that the proposal, if enacted, would do nothing to lower them. In fact, I direct your attention to the final sentence of Clause 9:

Nothing in this legislation shall be taken as forcing or inducing nations to lower existing national standards of workplace safety.
___________________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

this proposal is too vague. There are no exceptions made for certain types of labor and is therefore written in a manner that assumes all nations carry out retail work or other such non-dangerous activities. Such an act should be determined by unions within nations, not by a United Nations Act. This proposal is unfair to employers and employees alike as it does not offer an adequate explanation of enforcement and assumes the governments of the UN all have adequate funds to implement a program that is based in indeniably false promises and lacks detail.

i enjoyed this proposal, but it needs more detail for the regulations (ie. regular inspections, etc.). still voting FOR.

Aendinia’s Stance: AGAINST

The reason Aendinia has voted against this resolution is while the purpose of the legislation is well intended, it makes no provision for funding assistance for the program. The cost of these workplace safety measures would be passed onto the individual nations with no possibility of assistance from the U.N. or other, larger nations. The Freeland of Aendinia does not stand against the right of workers to work in a safe environment. It does stand against the reckless nature of this proposal, wherein it makes no provision for the source of funding for smaller, econmicaly weaker nations.

alot of these big words are confusing me....:confused:

*Sigh* Sir Edmund, defining how it is handled IS to be done internally -- or, to put it the way I put it seven hours ago, which for some reason is beginning to seem like a lifetime, "It is general so that individual nations can adapt details to suit their national circumstances while adhering to the general tenor of the proposal."

I am delighted that the working people of Balsack enjoy such sky-scrapingly high standards, and assure you that the proposal, if enacted, would do nothing to lower them. In fact, I direct your attention to the final sentence of Clause 9:


___________________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.


Defining how it is handled as vaguely as it has been leaves too much room for interpretation. There needs to be at set of hard fast minimums which all nations must comply with. Furthermore, the resolution does not address the issue of funding. It simply states, enact these vague worker safety policies, and then come up with the money on your own. Not truly ideal to be searching for money in a tight national budget for this program.

The resolution Workplace Safety Act was passed 9,792 votes to 4,965, and implemented in all UN member nations.

I'd like to thank Ardchoille and _Myopia_, who were the true co-authors of this, and thanks to all of those at UNOG who helped with the drafting. Also, a big thank you to everyone who argued in favor of the resolution in this thread.

Congratulations Yelda.

Yey. Congratulations.

Our congratulations on the passage of a worthy resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Aendinia’s Stance: AGAINST

The reason Aendinia has voted against this resolution is while the purpose of the legislation is well intended, it makes no provision for funding assistance for the program. The cost of these workplace safety measures would be passed onto the individual nations with no possibility of assistance from the U.N. or other, larger nations. The Freeland of Aendinia does not stand against the right of workers to work in a safe environment. It does stand against the reckless nature of this proposal, wherein it makes no provision for the source of funding for smaller, econmicaly weaker nations.

Actually, it passes off responsibility for funding on the owners of businesses.

Hearty congratulations.

LC & MV