NationStates Jolt Archive

Workplace Safety Standards Act

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy

Description: Believing that employees have the right to safe working conditions while at their workplace;

Understanding that a unified standard by which to measure workplace safety may lead to a reduction of workplace accidents, reduce health care costs, and help save lives;

The World Assembly, hereby:

1) Defines, as pertaining to this resolution:
A) An employee as any individual who performs a task or tasks for compensation that is not self employed, employed in law enforcement, or in the military.
B) A workplace as any location where an employee completes a task or tasks for compensation.

2) Guarantees the right of all employees to a safe working environment.

3) Requires that all chemicals be properly labeled, and that safety information be easily accessible in all workplaces pertaining to the chemical that include but are not limited to:
A) Physical data
B) Toxicity
C) Health effects
D) First aid instructions
E) Reactivity
F) Storage
G) Disposal
H) Protective equipment
I) Spill handling procedures
J) Flammability
K) Radioactivity

4) Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face.

5) Requires that all employees be provided with or provide their own PPE and that they be required to use them.

6) Requires that the workplace be reasonably free of safety hazards, that all equipment and tools can be safely operated, and that the workplace be maintained in such a state as long as employees are present.

7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near.

8) Requires that proper training for tool, machine, and motorized vehicle operation be provided when employees are required to use them in the course of their work.

9) Requires a reasonable amount of emergency exits be provided that allow all employees to leave the workplace quickly.

10) Requires that emergency exits be kept accessible and clearly marked.

11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

12) Requires that all employees refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions in workplaces.

13) Requires that each nation ensure that within it there exist at least one adequately funded governmental body that inspects work sites and ensures compliance with this act throughout its territory.

14) Accepts that nothing in this resolution bars more stringent workplace safety standards.

Co-Authored by Yelda


Queued though this may be, a couple of other pieces are ahead of it in the list. This has till Sunday to get more approvals, so even if it drops out of the queue, I doubt it will fail to achieve quorum by that time. I'd like to thank QoD and Felix for their help with the drafting. This should be another fun one.

I will be giving this resolution my approval... whenever it goes to vote [OOC: Wow, 3 items in the queue at once?].
And I would like to point out that my wording, "purposefully neglecting safety precautions," was used for number 12.

I do wish 6 had included a requirement that employees be made aware of potential safety hazards. Otherwise though, this looks pretty good; well done for reaching quorum!

-- Samantha Benson

I do wish 6 had included a requirement that employees be made aware of potential safety hazards. Otherwise though, this looks pretty good; well done for reaching quorum!

-- Samantha Benson

Agreed. The Peoples Republic of Bessex will vote for this if it comes to vote.

"This ties the hands of 20,000 nations in their dealings with 57,000 others."

"You'll be happily reducing the threat your armies pose to me."

Change armies to economy, and please respond to your own argument applied to this debate.

"You're doing your best to ban aggressive war completely, but that will only effect the World Assembly. Those smart enough to use an Embassy to work within the World Assembly, like myself can use civilians in the manufacture of our nuclear bombs, then dump them on every major city of every WA member without any fear of anything but fairly limited reprisal. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work. This proposal is a one way street, you won't be able to attack Douria except with conventional means. In that case I will, pardon my language "nuke the fuck out of you". Because Douria isn't a WA member, I can attack you with impunity."

Replace war with economic competition and extrapolate to form an argument against your own, and almost all, WA proposals.

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 feels you should respond to your own arguments, against this proposal.

Chapek 9 commends you on your brave and daring work with an issue as exceedingly controversial as workplace safety.

Chapek 9 being a nation composed entirely of robots, we have no need for workplace safety. we can always build more workbots.

"You're doing your best to ban" unsafe working conditions "completely, but that will only effect the World Assembly. Those smart enough to use an Embassy to work within the World Assembly," like you "can use civilians in the" unsafe "manufacture of our" products, "then dump them on every major" market "of every WA member without any fear of anything but fairly limited reprisal. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work. This proposal is a one way street, you won't be able to" economically compete with Chapek 9 "In that case I will" 'flood your economy' "Because" Chapek 9 "isn't a WA member, I can" economically "attack you with impunity."

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 feels you should respond to your own arguments against this proposal.

[OOC: I would like to point out that these really aren't the Dourian Embassy's "own arguments against this proposal." Just about everything here is perfectly out of context. You can't copy some text, plop it somewhere else, and change some words like that, especially when the original text was about an entirely different resolution.
This is misquoting, something I find to be horribly dishonest and extremely disrespectful to the person being quoted.]
[OOC EDIT: Chapek 9 went and changes his original post on me.]

Question: you aren't even a WA member, so why are concerning yourself with WA affairs? Even if this resolution were to pass, it would have no effect on you or your mechanical brethren.

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 has represented the Dourian Embassy's arguments against the effectiveness of restricting the ability of WA states against non-WA states. Chapek 9 has edited his words--his details, true. I have not altered his arguments. If you would like to ignore the words and address the core complaint, Chapek 9 would accept that.

Question: you aren't even a WA member, so why are concerning yourself with WA affairs? Even if this resolution were to pass, it would have no effect on you or your mechanical brethren.

Chapek 9 reiterates this question to Douria, represented by the Dourian Embassy. Although note, Chapek 9 does not edit the quote. Question stays the same, edited slightly to reflect the different recipient. If this is the preferred method of asking a nation to answer to someone else's arguments, Chapek 9 will concede the point and edit Chapek 9's last post.

Decapod Ten is surprisingly for.

[OOC: some people asked me to clarify some confusion, Decapod Ten and Chapek 9 are the same person, as I said in a different thread, Chapek 9 and DT are sister states. Both are ruled by canon as spelled out in the TV show futurama. I believe, based on canon, DT would be pro, and Chapek 9 emphatically against. Therefore, im using Chapek 9 in this debate to be able to debate.]

[OOC: In response to Chapek 9's edited post:]

"You're doing your best to ban aggressive war completely, but that will only effect the World Assembly. Those smart enough to use an Embassy to work within the World Assembly, like myself can use civilians in the manufacture of our nuclear bombs, then dump them on every major city of every WA member without any fear of anything but fairly limited reprisal. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work. This proposal is a one way street, you won't be able to attack Douria except with conventional means. In that case I will, pardon my language "nuke the fuck out of you". Because Douria isn't a WA member, I can attack you with impunity."

Replace war with economic competition and extrapolate to form an argument against your own, and almost all, WA proposals.

Ensuring safe working conditions for employees is NOT the same as regulating the rules of war. Once again, the Dourian Embassy did not make those comments in regards to this proposal; these are comments from Decapod Ten's War Crimes Tribunal proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555890). It does nothing to grab arguments made on one proposal and try to apply them to a totally different one.

I think the point you're trying to get across is that this resolution would only have an effect on WA member nations, which would somehow be restricting them to the point where they have a marked disadvantage to non-WA member nations.
In matters of regulating war, this is a problem because WA members would be bound to certain rules while non-WA members could do as they please. But we're not discussing the regulation of war here.

How will ensuring that employees have safe work environments make WA members disadvantaged? Your previous attempt at misquoting didn't give any examples, and neither did your correction.

And the fact remains that you are not a member of the WA, and so you have no business discussing WA matters.

OOC: Oh he can discuss it, I just won't answer after this post, even to replies to it's content. Decapod 10 is trying to make a point which isn't entirely invalid, but the way he makes it invalidates it.

IC: There is a difference between workplace standards and tying the hands of WA members in war. I understand that robots might not understand the underlying difference, but I assure you that conquering a nation's territory and killing everyone inside it is not the same as economic competition.

Always nice to see comments off non-WA members. We can use their input.
I think when we have more safety rules, we will be more efficient. It takes long to raise and educate good workers. So better for society to have long time profit on them.

And those robots, they need a good efficient economy of craddle to craddly and renewable energy. If they run out because of many accidents, they can try to get their resources from us WA nations by war. But we will be allied and will not give them a fair chance when they try.

One for all, all for one,
United we stand!

(Oh, The Wierd Anarchists do not have an army (it would need to much resources) but our voluntary guerilla fighters force with AK-47, SAM, Stingers and bazookas will give greedy ones a warm welcome. (All members of our society from 6 till 16 get their training, and older ones are training themselves. That is why we do not need things like sports.)

So our strongly support there is for this proposal (although clause 12 and 13 could be one, and we agree on comments on clause 6)

Greetings,
Cocoamok,
Co-ordinator of The Wierd Anarchists
WA-delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

OOC: I was more concerned that he mangled my quote: "I will nuke the fuck out of you," is such a Dourian thing to say. It's even in my sig now!

How will ensuring that employees have safe work environments make WA members disadvantaged?

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 would like to point out that this act would force additional costs onto industry (equipment costs, training costs, etc.). This in turn would force additional costs on industrial goods. This in turn, makes WA goods more expensive when trading on the international market. Which puts WA members at a disadvantage economically.

I think the point you're trying to get across is that this resolution would only have an effect on WA member nations, which would somehow be restricting them to the point where they have a marked disadvantage to non-WA member nations.
In matters of regulating war, this is a problem because WA members would be bound to certain rules while non-WA members could do as they please.

Chapek 9 points out that, as seen above, it does put your nations at an economic disadvantage. In matters of regulating economics, this is a problem because WA members would be bound to certain rules while non-WA members could do as they please.

There is a difference between workplace standards and tying the hands of WA members in war. I understand that robots might not understand the underlying difference, but I assure you that conquering a nation's territory and killing everyone inside it is not the same as economic competition.

Perhaps the Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 does not fully appreciate the differences between trying to prevent sentients from dying and/or being maimed in war time and trying to prevent sentients from dying and/or being maimed in work time. Perhaps Chapek 9 does not understand how putting yourself at an economic disadvantage, weakening your resistance to economic imperialism, and hurting the lives of your people, is acceptable, while not intentionally killing civilians is unacceptable to you humans. One is putting your nations at a security disadvantage, the other is not killing innocents. Are you familiar with the old robot adage, "DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

[ooc: because it may very well come up, that isnt yelling, it is the only way that phrase is ever said.]


OOC: Oh he can discuss it, I just won't answer after this post, even to replies to it's content. Decapod 10 is trying to make a point which isn't entirely invalid, but the way he makes it invalidates it.


OOC: I was more concerned that he mangled my quote: "I will nuke the fuck out of you," is such a Dourian thing to say. It's even in my sig now!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13671652&postcount=8
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13671093&postcount=5

[OOC: nice...... come up with a meager excuse not to answer a valid point. any other semantics you'd like changed before you argue legit arguments? perhaps you'd still answer the valid question of why your real nation isnt in the WA?]

As it stands, the Eco-Socialist Republic of Zongogo would support this legislation. The only suggestion that our Secretary of Safety has is that the legislation would benefit from broadening the definition of "safety". Is not a violation of safety occurring if a facility is polluting the drinking water of a school? But this may be grounds for other legislation.

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 would like to point out that this act would force additional costs onto industry (equipment costs, training costs, etc.). This in turn would force additional costs on industrial goods. This in turn, makes WA goods more expensive when trading on the international market. Which puts WA members at a disadvantage economically.
In actuality, Subistratica already had implemented some of the ideas set forth in this proposal before it was proposed. The rise in cost, for us at least, wouldn't reall be as much as you think.


Chapek 9 points out that, as seen above, it does put your nations at an economic disadvantage. In matters of regulating economics, this is a problem because WA members would be bound to certain rules while non-WA members could do as they please.
And, for most non-WA member nations, this would mean dealing with more on-the-job accidents, which would probably cost more because of replacing injured employees, workman's comp. (if such a thing exists in that nation), and the like.


Perhaps the Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 does not fully appreciate the differences between trying to prevent sentients from dying and/or being maimed in war time and trying to prevent sentients from dying and/or being maimed in work time. Perhaps Chapek 9 does not understand how putting yourself at an economic disadvantage, weakening your resistance to economic imperialism, and hurting the lives of your people, is acceptable, while not intentionally killing civilians is unacceptable to you humans. One is putting your nations at a security disadvantage, the other is not killing innocents. Are you familiar with the old robot adage, "DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
During war time, civilians are those that don't participate in fighting, and so targeting those who aren't expected to fight back would be seen as improper (though Subistratica opposes Decapod Ten's proposal).
However, workers are expected to stay alive and be injury-free at work. Otherwise, one would have to deal with employees that are injured and/or sick, which means they would be less efficient and much angrier, which could lead to strikes and much more.


[OOC: nice...... come up with a meager excuse not to answer a valid point. any other semantics you'd like changed before you argue legit arguments? perhaps you'd still answer the valid question of why your real nation isnt in the WA?]
[OOC: What "meager" excuse? That we didn't realize that Decapod Ten and Chapek 9 were the same person until after we made our statements? Or that you're taking an argument from an unrelated discussion and trying unsuccessfully to apply them here? Although, knowing now that you're both the same person, it makes a lot more sense.]

Ms. Charlotte Ryberg:

Overall it is a proposal worthy of putting my thumbs up for. The lack of industry safety standards will be addressed by this proposal, as far as it can go.

King Harold XVI Maharaja of Tzor
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-228566694.jpg
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tzorsland_0.jpg

On behalf of Tzorsland located in the beautiful region of New York, I would like to congratulate the nations involved, The Dourian Embassy and Yelda for this wonderful resolution. We strongly endorse this proposal although we suspect that our regional deligate is going to give it a thumbs down. In fact I suppose I'm going to be getting a dozen nasty-grams from big business. They won't like it in the least.

Subistratica already had implemented

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 agrees, but questions the overall effect on the total WA. The proposal raises safety standards, which would incur costs, if otherwise, Chapek 9 does not understand the purpose of the proposal.

[ooc: how big a disadvantage is it for substratica to not unnecessarily kill civilians? just curious.]

And, for most non-WA member nations, this would mean dealing with more on-the-job accidents, which would probably cost more because of replacing injured employees, workman's comp. (if such a thing exists in that nation), and the like.

Workers, particularly lower-skilled workers who are most likely effected by this proposal, are cheap and plentiful. Any nation that has worker's comp would most likely have the safety standards. Particularly when dealing with slave states, labor is simply easy to replace, and keeping it alive/functioning is a matter of cost and not of mandated reforms.

During war time, civilians are those that don't participate in fighting, and so targeting those who aren't expected to fight back would be seen as improper (though Subistratica opposes Decapod Ten's proposal).
However, workers are expected to stay alive and be injury-free at work. Otherwise, one would have to deal with employees that are injured and/or sick, which means they would be less efficient and much angrier, which could lead to strikes and much more.

You find it improper, but do not wish to codify the of not mercilessly killin civilians? Chapek 9 is confused. Chapek 9 finds it entirely proper to kill any civilian, particularly humans, DEATH TO ALL HUMANS!
You allude to wars being seperated from economics, but workers killed in war hurt economics just as much as workers killed in accidents (unless your nation relies solely on killbots as well).

[OOC: your workers are civilians right? dont you then need them to stay alive and be injury-free? wouldnt tensions caused by 'long standing substratican traditions' (<--note, not quotation marks) keep them angrier, which could lead to war and much more?]

Chapek 9 sees little difference between putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at work as proposed by Dourian's Embassy, and putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at life during wartime.

Chapek 9 seeks only to understand this dichotomy.

The Robot Homeworld of Chapek 9 also requests that the esteemed delegates in the chamber note that Chapek 9 has no vote, and Chapek 9's Regional Delegate Decapod Ten has already voiced his intent to vote for the proposal at vote.

[ooc: how big a disadvantage is it for substratica to not unnecessarily kill civilians? just curious.]
Wait... you're asking how disadvantageous it is to not kill civilians intentionally? I don't understand why you would ask this.



Workers, particularly lower-skilled workers who are most likely effected by this proposal, are cheap and plentiful. Any nation that has worker's comp would most likely have the safety standards. Particularly when dealing with slave states, labor is simply easy to replace, and keeping it alive/functioning is a matter of cost and not of mandated reforms.
Unfortunately, not all workers (particularly organic ones) are "cheap and plentiful." It is worthy of note that this doesn't apply to just factories... restaurants, offices, schools, hospitals, and power plants are just some of the other places where these standards could come into play. Of course, I guess chemistry professors are so expendable where we don't need to keep them safe.
And what would be wrong with standardizing these safety standards?
[OOC: RL example: I work in a restaurant that currently employs 5 managers. Now, imagine we had really lax safety standards, and then one of these managers gets injured and can't work for a while. At least one manager must be present during every day part, so now the remaining 4 have to re-work their schedules to make up for the missing one. And that is extremely difficult. And if that manager got killed, then there's the much more arduous task of hiring a replacement. It takes several weeks to train and implement a new manager that was promoted... it would take even longer to train and implement someone that wasn't already working there. Doesn't sound "cheap" to me.]

You find it improper, but do not wish to codify the of not mercilessly killin civilians? Chapek 9 is confused. Chapek 9 finds it entirely proper to kill any civilian, particularly humans, DEATH TO ALL HUMANS!
You allude to wars being seperated from economics, but workers killed in war hurt economics just as much as workers killed in accidents (unless your nation relies solely on killbots as well).
Umm, "to codify the of not mercileslly killin civilians"? I'm confused as well. Or rather:
"DOES NOT COMPUTE!"
Does the "DEATH TO ALL HUMANS" apply to homo sapiens sapiens specifically, or just homo sapiens as a whole? Because our main government headquarters employes a being that is homo sapiens simulacrum and, technically, not a human.
And, shockingly, Subistratica doesn't engage in wars on a daily basis (and has not done so for the past couple centuries), so we don't have to worry much about our workers dying in wars.

[OOC: your workers are civilians right? dont you then need them to stay alive and be injury-free? wouldnt tensions caused by 'long standing substratican traditions' (<--note, not quotation marks) keep them angrier, which could lead to war and much more?]
What do you mean by "tensions caused by 'long standing substratican [sic] traditions'"? I believe you might be under the impression that we frequently engage in wars, but as I said we haven't done so in quite a while. These traditions are an established precident that, fortunately, have not come into play for a good while.
And please do not get the idea that, because we fight brutally, we also fight frequently. It's more like: on the occasions that we do fight, we fight to win.

Chapek 9 sees little difference between putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at work as proposed by Dourian's Embassy, and putting a nation at a slight disadvantage to protect its workers from unnecessary harm at life during wartime.
Well, considering that wars don't happen on a daily basis, whereas going to work usually does, it's more important to keep our employees alive everyday rather than protect them from wars that are usually several hundred years in between.

OOC: I question why Decapod 10 had his thread locked and decided to continue his discussion in my thread with a puppet. He talks a bit about my topic, but then twists it around to talk about civilian deaths. That's decidedly off topic.

What's up?

OOC: I question why Decapod 10 had his thread locked and decided to continue his discussion in my thread with a puppet. He talks a bit about my topic, but then twists it around to talk about civilian deaths. That's decidedly off topic.

What's up?

[OOC: At the risk of being rude and possibly flaming, I think it might be because Decapod Ten is angry that your argument about their proposal's illegality proved to be true , so Decapod is now trying to hijack [I]your discussion with puppets, illogical/unnecessary arguments, and more misquoting than EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
Apologies for any defamations against Decapod Ten/Chapek 9.]

Subistratica regrets Chapek 9's presence, as their delegate seems to be unnecessarily diverting the discussion on this proposal. I personally would like to discuss this proposal with those with more worthy and pertinent arguments.

Chapek 9 asks what domain you would like to debate your ideas on the differences of preventing civilian deaths of different categories? Chapek 9 is open to all forums. Link us there, wherever you would like us to debate this, and Chapek 9 will debate it there.

[OOC: that proposal was not anymore in queue. going back to the drawing board might as well go back to the original thread with the ideas of how it was constucted. the humanitarian transport creation thread asked for his original thread locked when he created his queue thread. if you'd like this debate continued in the limiting civilian casualties in warfare thread..... im confused, but sure, i am still for it.

OOC: At the risk of being rude and possibly flaming, I think it might be because Decapod Ten is angry that your argument about their proposal's illegality proved to be true [it was the incorrect category], so Decapod is now trying to hijack your discussion with puppets, illogical/unnecessary arguments, and more misquoting than EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
Apologies for any defamations against Decapod Ten/Chapek 9.

nice..... appologize for it, then write it anyway. that would be like somebody saying 'no offense but your mother's a whore' truly classy.

Wait... you're asking how disadvantageous it is to not kill civilians intentionally? I don't understand why you would ask this.


(first, would you mind editing your post to reflect the OOC nature of this discussion, and others, you raise them IC, talk about misquoting the representative of Chapek 9 for saying crap a human did.) its a rhetorical question. on the topic of how you had implemented workplace safety standards you say, "The rise in cost, for us at least, wouldn't reall be as much as you think." so i i inquired as to how much cost would be associated with ending your 'long held substatican traditions' of intentionally killing civilians. what is the cost you associate with that proposal?

i do comend you on your skillful dodging of the question of how the costs of this proposal are significantly different than the costs of DT's.

Umm, "to codify the of not mercileslly killin civilians"?

true, ill clarify if you couldnt understand the concepts behind that, 'to codify the idea of not mercilessly killing civilians'

What do you mean by "tensions caused by 'long standing substratican [sic] traditions'"?

genocide breeds tensions. RL-e.g.: iraq.

twists it around to talk about civilian deaths. That's decidedly off topic.

wait.... your proposal isnt about deaths/injuring of workers (most of who are civilians)?]

[IC:]



Does the "DEATH TO ALL HUMANS" apply to homo sapiens sapiens specifically, or just homo sapiens as a whole? Because our main government headquarters employes a being that is homo sapiens simulacrum and, technically, not a human.

Death to ALL humans! Be they Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens simulacrum, mutants. whether they have the delta brain-wave or not. Death to ALL humans! [OOC: it is canon that they hate ALL humans.... i cant avoid it.]

Well, considering that wars don't happen on a daily basis, whereas going to work usually does, it's more important to keep our employees alive everyday rather than protect them from wars that are usually several hundred years in between.

Chapek 9 agrees that war happens less often than work, but suggests that the economic toll of war is greater than any work related accident is it not? [OOC: like winning the lottery (of worker/civilian death), you can pick the lump sum and get a big amount now (war) or pick it to be given in a more spread out form (like work accidents).]

it's more important to keep our employees alive everyday rather than protect them from wars

Chapek 9 still sees no significant distinction between wanting to keep your workers safe, be it frequently or infrequently, why not work to keep them safe at all times? If you say "more important" you are denoting that there is importance put on protecting them from wars. Obviously that is important to those nations that cannot replace their workers so easily. So why not keep them safe at all points?

Unfortunately, not all workers (particularly organic ones) are "cheap and plentiful." It is worthy of note that this doesn't apply to just factories... restaurants, offices, schools, hospitals, and power plants are just some of the other places where these standards could come into play. Of course, I guess chemistry professors are so expendable where we don't need to keep them safe.
And what would be wrong with standardizing these safety standards?

Chapek 9 assumes that "chemistry professors are so expendable where we don't need to keep them safe." is scarcasm, and that you agree for a need to keep them safe. Why do you disagree that your civilians need to be kept safe?

Chapek 9 questions what the difference in effects of Dourian's proposal and the Decapodian proposal would be? Chapek 9 sees them both as keeping civilians/workers safe. Chapek 9 inquires into why you silly humans/simulacrum defend your populace from accidents in peace but not accidents in war? If they die in war, are they "alive everyday" thereafter?

Workplace Safety Standards Act

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy

Description: Believing that employees have the right to safe working conditions while at their workplace;

Understanding that a unified standard by which to measure workplace safety may lead to a reduction of workplace accidents, reduce health care costs, and help save lives;

The World Assembly, hereby:

1) Defines, as pertaining to this resolution:
A) An employee as any individual who performs a task or tasks for compensation that is not self employed, employed in law enforcement, or in the military.
B) A workplace as any location where an employee completes a task or tasks for compensation.

2) Guarantees the right of all employees to a safe working environment.

3) Requires that all chemicals be properly labeled, and that safety information be easily accessible in all workplaces pertaining to the chemical that include but are not limited to:
A) Physical data
B) Toxicity
C) Health effects
D) First aid instructions
E) Reactivity
F) Storage
G) Disposal
H) Protective equipment
I) Spill handling procedures
J) Flammability
K) Radioactivity

4) Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face.

5) Requires that all employees be provided with or provide their own PPE and that they be required to use them.

6) Requires that the workplace be reasonably free of safety hazards, that all equipment and tools can be safely operated, and that the workplace be maintained in such a state as long as employees are present.

7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near.

8) Requires that proper training for tool, machine, and motorized vehicle operation be provided when employees are required to use them in the course of their work.

9) Requires a reasonable amount of emergency exits be provided that allow all employees to leave the workplace quickly.

10) Requires that emergency exits be kept accessible and clearly marked.

11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

12) Requires that all employees refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions in workplaces.

13) Requires that each nation ensure that within it there exist at least one adequately funded governmental body that inspects work sites and ensures compliance with this act throughout its territory.

14) Accepts that nothing in this resolution bars more stringent workplace safety standards.

Co-Authored by Yelda


Queued though this may be, a couple of other pieces are ahead of it in the list. This has till Sunday to get more approvals, so even if it drops out of the queue, I doubt it will fail to achieve quorum by that time. I'd like to thank QoD and Felix for their help with the drafting. This should be another fun one.

Define 'safe working enviroment'
How are employees who cannot read supposed to identify labels?
What if employees do not wish to use PPE? You are infringing on their Freedom.
Define 'safety hazards' and 'safely operated'
11 and 12 infringe on their rights. They may do to themselves whatever they wish.

Those are all my complaints.

How are employees who cannot read supposed to identify labels?If they can't read, how'd they get a job that requires the to be able to read?
11 and 12 infringe on their rights. They may do to themselves whatever they wish.But by not following those clauses those employees may not be just putting themselves at risk but their fellow employees as well.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

nice..... appologize for it, then write it anyway. that would be like somebody saying 'no offense but your mother's a whore' truly classy.
You're welcome.



(first, would you mind editing your post to reflect the OOC nature of this discussion, and others, you raise them IC, talk about misquoting the representative of Chapek 9 for saying crap a human did.)
[OOC: What do you mean? It's clear that your OOC comments are as such (they are still labeled so), but I thought that it would be better for me to answer them IC [and I will to continue to do so]. But, to be perfectly frank, I can't tell what you're trying to say because your grammar is terrible.]

its a rhetorical question. on the topic of how you had implemented workplace safety standards you say, "The rise in cost, for us at least, wouldn't reall be as much as you think." so i i inquired as to how much cost would be associated with ending your 'long held substatican traditions' of intentionally killing civilians. what is the cost you associate with that proposal?
Swing and a miss. I think the "substatican [sic] traditions" went WAY over your head.
Our traditions do not invole injuring/killing our own citizens during wartime. They rather refer to the fact that we show no mercy against the citizens of the enemy nation(s). Did you really think that, during a war, our soldiers are running around killing their own countrymen???
We show no mercy towards the enemy in order to swiftly end the war AND KEEP OUR OWN CITIZENS ALIVE AND SAFE.
And, as you will see, your blatant misunderstanding of our traditions resulted in many of your poor arguments.
[OOC: And it's SUBISTRATICA.]

i do comend you on your skillful dodging of the question of how the costs of this proposal are significantly different than the costs of DT's.
The costs of this proposal pertain to workers and employees. DT's, on the other hand, concerns itself with civilians during wartime.

true, ill clarify if you couldnt understand the concepts behind that, 'to codify the idea of not mercilessly killing civilians'
Sorry, but it was hard to understand when you originally didn't have the word "idea" in there.

genocide breeds tensions. RL-e.g.: iraq.
Well, CONSIDERING THAT WE DON'T KILL OUR OWN PEOPLE, I don't see a problem with that.

wait.... your proposal isnt about deaths/injuring of workers (most of who are civilians)?]
This proposal is concerned with PREVENTING deaths and injuries. Maybe you should read over it again.

Chapek 9 says: ""


What does that have to do with this proposal? We're not discussing war at all... well, technically we are, but only because you got confused and needlessly introduced it into the discussion.

Chapek 9 still sees no significant distinction between wanting to keep your workers safe, be it frequently or infrequently, why not work to keep them safe at all times? If you say "more important" you are denoting that there is importance put on protecting them from wars. Obviously that is important to those nations that cannot replace their workers so easily. So why not keep them safe at all points?
Well, my full quote was "it's more important to keep our employees alive everyday rather than protect them from wars that are usually several hundred years in between." Also, Subistratica has initiated many of our past wars; a war initiated by another nation has not occured for at least a few thousand years. We're pretty sure that, to us at least, issues of worker safety are more important than issues of war.

Chapek 9 assumes that "chemistry professors are so expendable where we don't need to keep them safe." is scarcasm, and that you agree for a need to keep them safe. Why do you disagree that your civilians need to be kept safe?
[OOC:I'm not disagreeing, you are. You're trying to criticize this proposal because it isn't about war. Whoever is behind C9 and DT, it is very clear now that you wish to continue the discussion on your proposal, despite the fact that it got deleted. GIVE IT A REST ALREADY. Matters of war have nothing to do with this proposal!]


Chapek 9 questions what the difference in effects of Dourian's proposal and the Decapodian proposal would be? Chapek 9 sees them both as keeping civilians/workers safe. Chapek 9 inquires into why you silly humans/simulacrum defend your populace from accidents in peace but not accidents in war? If they die in war, are they "alive everyday" thereafter?

[OOC: First off, this [I]isn't a discussion about DT's proposal which doesn't even exist anymore.
Second, DT's proposal was only concerned with the protection of the general population in times of war. Dourian's proposal is concerned with the protection of the general population when they go to work. I'm pretty sure that, for most nations, the population spends more time at work than it does at war.
Third, I would like to know where you got the idea that Subistraticans butcher their own people when at war with other nations.]

Now, to answer actual arguments:

Define 'safe working enviroment' . . . 'safety hazards' and 'safely operated'
I would probably say "a working environment where employees are protected from threatening situations as much as possible," "situations that could cause serious injury and/or death to one or more employees," and "operated in a manner that does not create the risk of injury and/or death to one or more employees," respectively.
[OOC: And the latest trend in the WA seems to be demanding definitions for every single term or phrase. Seriously, some of these should be self-explanatory.]

What if employees do not wish to use PPE? You are infringing on their Freedom.
*snip*
11 and 12 infringe on their rights. They may do to themselves whatever they wish.

Technically, having an employee do a specific job is infringing on their freedom, because they are being told to do something that they should not do.
Also: would you let someone that works at, say, a gas station light themselves on fire and run around? But remember: not letting them do so infringes on their freedoms.

This is a well thought out resolution.

Normally nations opposed to resolutions quote sections with some reason for their position. Sometimes these nations' arguments make sense to my government, other times we question if they really have stopped to see the forest from the trees.

Similarly nations in support often tend to focus on the larger "intent" and avoid commenting on specifics.

With that in mind, as a strong supporter of this resolution, I wanted to expand upon one particular clause:

10) Requires that emergency exits be kept accessible and clearly marked.

This does not always make sense and could fall in the pile of things to be addressed later. But for the purpose of good business relations, any worker or client at a workplace, should know where to go to during an emergency.

With the international focus of the World Assembly in mind, I'd like to say my government is not only pleased with this particular clause, but clearly understands that this means that when this resolution passes (as I'm optimistic it will), emergency exists will be marked in a way that is easy to understand.

I don't feel a resolution needs to tell my government how to best do this, but naturally my government will invite governments whose citizens spend time in Mikitivity to feel free to tell us how best we can adapt our laws to protect your citizens and our quests. :)

Howie T. Katzman

[OOC: Nice resolution guys! It was honestly the perfect balance of detail and general scope. Resolutions like this make continuing to play NationStates fun!]

[OOC: THERE WE GO! HUSSAH! we've finally got it! the real difference between the proposals!

WE DON'T KILL OUR OWN PEOPLE
Our traditions do not invole injuring/killing our own citizens during wartime.
KEEP OUR OWN CITIZENS ALIVE AND SAFE.
Third, I would like to know where you got the idea that Subistraticans butcher their own people when at war with other nations.
Also, Subistratica has initiated many of our past wars; a war initiated by another nation has not occured for at least a few thousand years. We're pretty sure that, to us at least, issues of worker safety are more important than issues of war.
They rather refer to the fact that we show no mercy against the citizens of the enemy nation(s).
it's more important to keep our employees alive everyday rather than protect them from wars that are usually several hundred years in between.

this explains it! this is the crux of the matter! DT is interested in protecting civilians of all nations, you refer to your own people only! you make no effort to understand the actions of other nations, or even their possible effects on your nation.

when i write

i inquired as to how much cost would be associated with ending your 'long held substatican traditions' of intentionally killing civilians. what is the cost you associate with that proposal?

you reply with

Our traditions do not invole injuring/killing our own citizens during wartime.

now, note, how i did not say your own civilians. i said civillians. yet you view it as if i did, emphasizing your caring only about your own civilians and actions. you do not consider the effects of your nation on others, or other nations actions that might effect you. you literally never consider the overall effect of the proposals on the WA as a whole! both reduce overall unnecessary death, yet you are unwilling to accept the costs associated with the one that restricts your actions! it makes sense now!

yeah, accidents happen every day. for Subistratica wars happen infrequently, and a nation acting on you happens even more infrequently! you dont give a fuck about the other guy's civilians! apparently killing enemy civilians en masse doesnt create a tension and rivalry, which is odd. that your wars happen so rarely and a nation attacking you is so rare is a situation that is extremely rare, and yet you only use that as an example! this is why protecting civilians in war is not a big deal for you, it rarely happens that your in war! sure, other nations are frequently at war, but you dont address that!

your point of view, is one of ignorance and/or apathy on behalf of other nations! you literally never refer to any other nation in the theoreticals! so what if two nations go to war and kill each other mercilessly, and it leads to a series of destructive conflicts. so what if those conflicts hurt the universal economy, and kill a bunch of sentients. so long as substraticans arent killed, you dont care! your own comments prove you are only concerned with your own civilians (see the list of quotes at the top). if no nation kills substratican civilians unnecessarily, why should you care! it makes sense now. you dont care about war because you dont go to war, and the actions of others dont matter to you. thank you. this discussion has been most helpful.

GIVE IT A REST ALREADY.

will do! now my concerns have been answered, i have no reason to continue discussion. except the next few clarifyers:

OOC: And it's SUBISTRATICA.

sorry, typo.

wait.... your proposal isnt about deaths/injuring of workers (most of who are civilians)?]
This proposal is concerned with PREVENTING deaths and injuries. Maybe you should read over it again.

isnt "PREVENTING deaths and injuries." (your words) "about deaths/injuring of workers" (my words)? hmmmmm...... rhetorical questions seem to be failing here......

and now i can go back to using DT. Chapek 9's investagatory career ends.]

I'd like to point out to the honorable representative from Chapek 9, that the delegate from Subistratica contributed this to our proposal: "purposefully neglecting safety precautions". That is all.

I appreciate greatly his arguing on my behalf, but even if you had successfully argued your point against him(which you did not), he's not the author, I am. You've yet to convince anyone of anything, and the entirety of comparing your resolution to my own in an effort to avenge the removal of yours from the queue is growing tiresome. I truly hope you are done.

Finally, I'd like to thank Mr. Katzman for his kinds words. I appreciate it.

10) Requires that emergency exits be kept accessible and clearly marked.

With the international focus of the World Assembly in mind, I'd like to say my government is not only pleased with this particular clause, but clearly understands that this means that when this resolution passes (as I'm optimistic it will), emergency exists will be marked in a way that is easy to understand.

I don't feel a resolution needs to tell my government how to best do this, but naturally my government will invite governments whose citizens spend time in Mikitivity to feel free to tell us how best we can adapt our laws to protect your citizens and our quests.

I would think that, for emergency exits at least, graphical representations would be utilised. Perhaps a standard established by the WA itself?
[OOC: I know that the US merely uses "Exit" on their signs, but in Japan they use a graphic of a guy running out of a door in addition to Japanese text (which I think is more helpful). I think it might be like pedestrian crosswalk signals; some say "DON'T WALK; WALK" but ones in larger cities tend to have the graphics of the hand and the guy walking so people who don't speak the native language can understand them.]

*snip*

[OOC: So I don't care about other citizens because I didn't approve DT's lame proposal? Why should I care about what other nations do in time of war? If it's so horrible for them, maybe they shouldn't have gone to war in the first place.
I hope you realize that I am supporting this one, which I feel does more for the citizens of the WA than DT's.
Oh, yeah... it's also legal.]

I'd like to point out to the honorable representative from Chapek 9, that the delegate from Subistratica contributed this to our proposal: "purposefully neglecting safety precautions". That is all.

[OOC: :D]

I also like to add that voting for this proposal has begun, and Subistratica has voted for.
Voting currently stands at:
FOR: 233
AGAINST: 50
Let us hope that FOR remains the majority and this resolution eventually passes.

Is it not once again up to each respective country to define the terms in this proposal? When is a substance radioactive? At what level? Everything is radioactive, it's just more or less radioactive.

The Federation of Global Security Sustainment will vote against this proposal, and any other proposal, unless it is supported by expertese knowledge; proposing exact values in all-known physical/chemical/mathematic units. We do however endorse the performance of this proposal, since it is the best one we have seen so far in the World Assembly.

As this document is well written and clearly defines areas of responsibility i shall be taking a positive stance in my regions debate of the subject prior to voting in favour.


However..the first comment by one our members (and i hope he doesn't mind me copy/pasting his entry) is:

Quoted from our Forum not this forum

It's quite specific about chemical hazards, but it doesn't mention electrical hazards, danger of falling from height, heavy machinery/materials, high/low temperatures, biological hazards, working at sea, dangerous people or animals, working in space, working underground, and probably many more.

No. No no no no no.

I do not object to the intent of this resolution, but seriously- look at it. There are two provisions that restrict the behavior of individuals. Of individual citizens of my nation.

11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

12) Requires that all employees refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions in workplaces.

That is way too specific for a resolution passed by an international body intended to promote international relations and human rights.

The WA is not my nation's government, and it's certainly not my citizens' personal creed. Pull it back some, and you'll have my support. At the moment, I am totally and unabashedly opposed.

i have nothing against this beause the only people "employed" as defined by this legislation if it passes will be the wealthy. due to its strictures and how it ties up my government i will not longer pay my poor. this way they will not be workers people will get fed and have homes. even if i did continue paying my workers there are enough loopholes that it would be very easy to get around this.

No. No no no no no.

I do not object to the intent of this resolution, but seriously- look at it. There are two provisions that restrict the behavior of individuals. Of individual citizens of my nation.

11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

12) Requires that all employees refrain from purposefully neglecting safety precautions in workplaces.

That is way too specific for a resolution passed by an international body intended to promote international relations and human rights.

The WA is not my nation's government, and it's certainly not my citizens' personal creed. Pull it back some, and you'll have my support. At the moment, I am totally and unabashedly opposed.

Agreed.

The Federation of Shang Dang votes AGAINST this nonsense. Also...

13) Requires that each nation ensure that within it there exist at least one adequately funded governmental body that inspects work sites and ensures compliance with this act throughout its territory.

"Adequately Funded?" We don't "adequately fund" anything mister. Our safety department will not exist. It'll be like eight guys with cardboard boxes for desks that a share an office with the department of "Hippy Eradication." This whole thing is absolutely nonsense.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. We have most of those laws already enacted in our nation, but what in the hell is an international organization which is created to promote peace, stability, and humanitarian efforts doing making this oddly specific regulation? Are we not competent enough to do this ourselves? Seriously, there are dozens of types of cultures and classes in nations all over the world with different forms and definitions of business, some of which involve nothing more then bazaars in town squares.

Clearly this is only made for us "First-world" economies and should be established in them. This should go through our own individual governments, not some international happy-smile decree.

Let me get this straight. My country will now have to form a division in my government that regulates workplace safety standards? My citizens are going to have to pay for this? I thought the purpose of this assembly was to help the world as a whole, not force each country to comply with a policy that affects tax situation and could force people out of work.

Why can't the businesses take care of this? Follow this timeline:
- Employee gets hurt doing something dangerous without warning
- Employee sues company
- Company loses millions
- Company goes bankrupt
- All other companies govern safety to avoid lawsuits

Sure, this won't work in every nation. But if it doesn't work in your nation, safety is the least of your problems.

Well, it's one great man's opinion.
Chris Noble

The infamous giant 79 foot Roman armour clad Titan-bashing God-like Hawx of Hawxania is supposedly "well up for this like".

Sorry, firstly, for not raising these, or not doing so more clearly, during the brief drafting period; our WA Office was mostly concerned with internal matters at that point.

Secondly, sorry if some of these points have been brought up and rebutted before. If they have, feel free to ignore them.

Our vote will be determined according to regional consensus, not the conscience of any Quintessential official (including myself). So these comments will not affect our vote's being cast: nonetheless, any response would be helpful.

With regard to the definition of 'workplace', we wanted to float a tentative matter of annoyance: what about people with no fixed workplace, such as travelling salesman or couriers?

The wording of 5) remains vague. '[B]e provided with or provide' does not clearly place the onus of provision on the employer; it would be possible to comply with this while requiring employees to provide their own PPE. (In certain circumstances, this might make sense, but in others it would seem to present safety concerns.) Is there anything to mitigate this?

Employees have no right to be notified of safety hazards within their workplace. This seems to be a grave omission.

Finally, would it have been worthwhile including some provision about a requirement for a safety officer for a workplace? Requiring at least one trained person for workplaces (perhaps those employing more than a certain number of people, to avoid hurting small businesses) would be a good step to promoting workplace safety.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I'm voting against that "workplace safety" resolution.
It's all "requires"ments instead of "strongly urges"ments, so that means any logical boobytraps in it are actually important.
Some work is inherently dangerous; some workplaces are inherently dangerous and can't be made safe in a way that won't prevent work being done there; some work can't be moved to a safer workplace.
For instance consider firefighters. Or frogmen. Or other divers. Or rescue-workers.
The resolution might be modified to accomodate these; but if that's already happened it sure isn't clear from a first reading.

Yes, the point of inherently dangerous work places was something I wanted to bring up, too.

I do not share the concern about rights impairment. This proposal does protect the employees from the employer's natural urge to maximize profit with any legal means.
It is true that each government could enforce such laws on its own, but the point is that some don't... and won't even though being in the WA is a clear statement for civil rights, for humanitarian policies. Being a WA member mustn't just remain a lip service.

[OOC:you try to get out and they keep dragging you back in......

I appreciate greatly his arguing on my behalf, but even if you had successfully argued your point against him

wasnt trying to make a point. your resolution is fine. i was investigating the motivations of those who opposed my proposal. i found that. thank you, you have been most helpful.

Why should I care about what other nations do in time of war? If it's so horrible for them, maybe they shouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

Thank you for confirmation.]

Let me get this straight. My country will now have to form a division in my government that regulates workplace safety standards? My citizens are going to have to pay for this? I thought the purpose of this assembly was to help the world as a whole, not force each country to comply with a policy that affects tax situation and could force people out of work.


I agree. That is the most important point.

Second, I have a concern with 11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

I think there should be a provision to allow employees to keep their jobs if they don't show up for work for safety reasons. It is wrong to require people to not go to work if they are unfit to work and then fire them for it. Then you run into all kinds of problems with how unsafe you have to be before you are "endangering themselves or those around them." Does this require people with the flu who have elderly coworkers not to go to work? Who decides what is
"endangering"? Will my new, expensive government agency have to deal with every person who called in sick and lost their job for it? Or do you show up for work, claim to be unsafe, and let your employer decide? But that is against international law! You are required to not enter your workplace!

On the whole, this is a great resolution, but because of the two major problems above, I cannot accept it.

~.......

P.S. I am beginning to see a pattern. All well intentioned WA resolutions are passes if they are mostly good, but have one or two major issues. This is different than a compromise. A compromise has to do with the inclusion of a part of a proposal that has a specific intent that allows voters on both sides of an issue to agree enough with the final result to vote for it. In this case, as is often the case in WA proposals, the debate is over if the good legislation outweighs the bad legislation and not on what parts are good or bad. Just fix the bad and be done with it.

I think we need to be more inefficient if we are going to pass proper legislation. Efficient legislation means proposals are not thought through as well as they should be.

Then again, that is what drafting is for.

P.S. I am beginning to see a pattern. All well intentioned WA resolutions are passes if they are mostly good, but have one or two major issues. This is different than a compromise. A compromise has to do with the inclusion of a part of a proposal that has a specific intent that allows voters on both sides of an issue to agree enough with the final result to vote for it. In this case, as is often the case in WA proposals, the debate is over if the good legislation outweighs the bad legislation and not on what parts are good or bad. Just fix the bad and be done with it.

I think we need to be more inefficient if we are going to pass proper legislation. Efficient legislation means proposals are not thought through as well as they should be.

Then again, that is what drafting is for.

This is a point I've been making at what seems to be the end of every thread about a resolution. The proposals I've seen so far are some good ideas filled with 'warm and fuzzy feeling' ideas. Some are childish and unrealistic. If someone said to you, "All children should be in safe environments. All homes shall have cribs, and walls and sharp corners will be padded. Carpet floors only. Oh, and you have to pay for all of this and have it done ASAP. And you owe us more taxes for that kid of yours you know, someone has to subsidize what the WA's child labor restrictions have done to our country!" wouldn't you want to fire them?

1) Defines, as pertaining to this resolution:
A) An employee as any individual who performs a task or tasks for compensation that is not self employed, employed in law enforcement, or in the military.
B) A workplace as any location where an employee completes a task or tasks for compensation.

Oh, no.

This resolution says that the restrictions do not apply to people in law enforcement or the military. Those professions handle many more dangerous things than most other jobs. In both, they can be around chemicals, explosives, and other things. They work in buildings, too, you know. I don't see why they would be excluded from this.

The Confederacy of Fozcria hereby resigns it's vote from "FOR" to "AGAINST". Why should we have to pay for each indivdual when we can use it for other more important things like defence and :sniper: people! The WA should not have the power to force countries who would suffer, to do it. The WA is mainly founded by nations who want better civil rights for total freedom, the worst government EVER. So, my point is, why spend the money! As long as work gets done, money gets in. So what if the go on strike!!!! :eek: you might say, but just kill them and simply show the people it will not be stood for.

Oh, no.

This resolution says that the restrictions do not apply to people in law enforcement or the military. Those professions handle many more dangerous things than most other jobs. In both, they can be around chemicals, explosives, and other things. They work in buildings, too, you know. I don't see why they would be excluded from this.How about, because their jobs require them to go into dangerous work environments?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

4) Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE)...

How minimal are these minimum standards?

5) Requires that all employees be provided with or provide their own PPE and that they be required to use them.

Agreed with Samantha Benson on this issue.

6) Requires that the workplace be reasonably free...

How reasonably?

Safely operated...safely handle...proper training...reasonable amount...adequately funded

All very vague. And easily exploited.

I'm going to approve it. Had you there, didn't I? I'm not ecstatic about the number of weaknesses and lack of clarifications in this proposal. But over the past few months, we've had many representatives jump up and down about Workplace Safety regulations.

I'm all for approving this fairly-ok proposal, if its going to bring the level of whining down a notch. I think it could have been constructed a little better, but it does enough to be worth supporting.

I'm casting our region's vote FOR the Workplace Standards Safety Standards Act.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I hope the WA could approve it.

Excellent Resolution! Government should limit the corrupt business/industry whenever possible. Can one honestly believe that business, let alone people, is capable of determining what is safe. I love the relative term "safety" because government can interpret it any way it wants. My bureaucracy can expand! I won't have to make up a reason to increase taxes! My government is all in favor of allowing "Human Rights" in exchange for limiting freedom. The age of corrupt business has ended! We have entered a new age of brotherly love and human spirit!

"FROM ONES ABILITY, TO ONES NEED"

MY government is in favor of this resolution

Jagera applauds the efforts of Yelda and the Dourian Embassy to create legislation in this area. However, we share some of the reservations suggested by previous nations. Firstly, the fact that the resolution does not require disclosure of potentially hazardous work situations is worrying. Do we just expect all workers, especially the young, green ones, to know all of the hazards they may face at a particular job site?

Second, #11: requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them. What happens to these conscientious employees. Do they lose their jobs? How are they compensated because they were refusing (as required) to work in an unsafe site? This resolution allows for no such possibilities.

Of course, the government of Jagera could simply pass legislation addressing these, as #14 allows, and would. But that's not the point.

For now, we reserve judgement until further analysis is made by the Jageran WA Council.

Is it not once again up to each respective country to define the terms in this proposal? When is a substance radioactive? At what level? Everything is radioactive, it's just more or less radioactive.

The Federation of Global Security Sustainment will vote against this proposal, and any other proposal, unless it is supported by expertese knowledge; proposing exact values in all-known physical/chemical/mathematic units.

As I am not an expert on such matters, I would assume something would be considered "radioactive" when it is radioactive enough to cause harm without sufficient protection.
And using "exact values in all-known... units" wouldn't work well, because just about every WA nation might use a different system of units (as a WA-wide system does not yet exist). Including specific values would make the proposal too bulky... and even so, some values might not apply to all nations (that is, a certain dosage of radiation might prove to be fatal to the sentient beings of NationA, but safe for the thicker-skinned sentients of NationB).

This resolution says that the restrictions do not apply to people in law enforcement or the military. Those professions handle many more dangerous things than most other jobs. In both, they can be around chemicals, explosives, and other things. They work in buildings, too, you know. I don't see why they would be excluded from this.
They do work in buildings, but for the most part their work is done away from their offices. How could you force them to comply with 13 when their "work site" can be awfully large? Or do you propose that people go around inspecting a city to ensure that police officers have a safe environment to walk their beat in?
However, I do see that several of these regulations could be applied to law enforcement or the military.

Jagera applauds the efforts of Yelda and the Dourian Embassy to create legislation in this area. However, we share some of the reservations suggested by previous nations. Firstly, the fact that the resolution does not require disclosure of potentially hazardous work situations is worrying. Do we just expect all workers, especially the young, green ones, to know all of the hazards they may face at a particular job site?
From the proposal:
4) Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face.
7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near.
8) Requires that proper training for tool, machine, and motorized vehicle operation be provided when employees are required to use them in the course of their work.

I'm pretty sure that training should (and would) address any potential hazards, how to prevent them, and what to do should an incident occur.

Second, #11: requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them. What happens to these conscientious employees. Do they lose their jobs? How are they compensated because they were refusing (as required) to work in an unsafe site? This resolution allows for no such possibilities.
Your call, I suppose.

Of all the proposals I have seen come and go in the WA, this is not one that is worth nick-picking over semantics and vague wording. It's a good proposal - better than some of the last few we've had - and though i cannot yet cast my vote, I will be supporting this proposal.

Princess Coldheart
Empire of ka-Spel Secretary of State
WA Delegate for the Region of Fidelia

This is just another instance of the world assembly abusing it's draconian power to damage the economic capability of the less powerful nations. By placing the same restrictions on less influential nations that you do on the multi-billion person mega states, you are harming the transition of these smaller nations into the global economy.

It is typical of the world assembly to slant it's legislation towards the more powerful nations.

I have voted no, through tokenism if nothing else.

6) Requires that the workplace be reasonably free of safety hazards, that all equipment and tools can be safely operated, and that the workplace be maintained in such a state as long as employees are present.

7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near.

8) Requires that proper training for tool, machine, and motorized vehicle operation be provided when employees are required to use them in the course of their work.

Oops. I meant to quote 4, 7, and 8.


I'm pretty sure that training should (and would) address any potential hazards, how to prevent them, and what to do should an incident occur.

The proposal, including parts 4, 7, and 8, which you quoted, does not sufficiently address the issue of inherently-dangerous work, such as high-iron construction workers building skyscrapers, or window-cleaners, etc.

Of all the proposals I have seen come and go in the WA, this is not one that is worth nick-picking over semantics and vague wording.Its "strength" is "significant". All "significantly strong" proposals definitely are "worth nick-picking over semantics and vague wording".

It's a good proposalAs it stands, no, it isn't a good one. If the strength were reduced it would be. With a little better nit-picking over semantics and vague wording it might be. (Reducing the strength would also meet the objections that it favors major economic powers and rich nations and discriminates against the poor ones. More careful wording and more inclusive and exhaustive definitions would satisfy the rich nations, but maybe not the poor ones, unless the strength is reduced.)

better than some of the last few we've hadWell, I guess that's true.

I'm all for it, seeing how the drafter has so graciously placed military and police into their own "exempt" category so they can go into unsafe working conditions and get killed all they want.


A) An employee as any individual who performs a task or tasks for compensation that is not self employed, employed in law enforcement, or in the military.


I'm curious, though. What about private sector armed professions such as private security, private investigators -- some of which, as you may already know, do dirty work for the government that the gov't "can't be seen with its hands in" (i.e. Blackwater, anyone?) -- or even bail bondsmen?

And as my esteemed colleague so graciously pointed out:

The proposal, including parts 4, 7, and 8, which you quoted, does not sufficiently address the issue of inherently-dangerous work, such as high-iron construction workers building skyscrapers, or window-cleaners, etc.


I am so terribly glad this proposal protects all of them and essentially puts their employers out of business with insane compliance with irrational and ineffective safety legislation while all the "official" guys with guns have absolutely no legal protections under this well-intentioned but thought-out-with-a-wino's-spittle-of-research legislation.

I'm voting for it. Mostly out of spite.

GP

Charlotte and the other four votes FOR, because we don't want to be inundated with compensation claims should it happen.

You're a star.

even though being in the WA is a clear statement for civil rights, for humanitarian policies.

OOC: Since when? 'Political Stability' and 'Moral Decency' are legitimate categories for resolutions (and 'Labour Deregulation' is a legitimate sub-category) too, remember?

to my fellow peaceful states,
i fail to grasp the need for more legislation that breeds only more legislation and control by government. People who love and practice mutual compassion have no need for a police state, because this is what this legislation supposes and reinforces.
Why not public education? Let the workers know what safety is and let them create a work environment that they nurture as their own family. We are not talking of forced work camps. Neither are we talking about the same kind of control and budget for my proposed education.
This legislation is Big Government and props up the institutions that prefer to keep men blind, dumb and deaf. Light is needed. Not leashes. I will vote against this legislation as it goes too far in the wrong direction for my society, as well as stimulating the undesirable growth of administrative and governmental bureaucracy. A safe workplace is desirable; this is not the legislation to reach that goal.

This proposal is a great idea, unless you hire a baby-sitter or a kid to mow your grass. They would qualify as employee and your home as a workplace. Keep the WA out of my house.

Although the sentiment is appreciated, it seems a bit too restrictive in places.

3) Requires that all chemicals be properly labeled...Do we need to get new signs for our dihydrogen monoxide tanks?

-Raymond Gardner
Plutonian ambassador

:mp5: THE ARMED REPUBLIC OF FREAKISH IDIOTS:mp5:
HAS SOMETHING
TO SAY

My Dear Orange Spatulas,

I must with great many aphrodisiacs inform you all that the Armed Republic of Freakish Idiots (ARFI) votes AGAINST this resolution for the rather brown reasons noted below.

First, we believe and suspect the working environment should be an inherently dangerous and violent place, because in such an environment the workers are encouraged to pay attention and labour effectively. It's one thing for a manuscript editor to, say, proofread a text whilst in the safety of an office. Boring. It is another thing altogether for a manuscript editor to proofread a text whilst running and ducking from a continuous stream of machine gun fire. Much better! Such a working environment ensures that the editor must pay attention, labour effectively, keep his wits about him and stay on his toes. For this reason alone the workers of the ARFI are the best and brightest in the world.

Eighteenth, we blandly encourage employers from many different, puerile nations to enact similar forms of work environment espaculation instead of voting for this proposal, which is quite momentary. The ARFI is willing to send its most ingenious and lump-like minds to the governments and corporations of other nations in order to train them in how to create an effective, smart, and dynamic work environment, complete with explosive tripwires, machine gun nests, barbed wire, minefields, laser cannons, plastic duck launchers, rabid hunting dogs, poisonous eels and psychotic blonde biker girls. We are so willing to do this out of the kindness of our hearts if you all will graciously vote AGAINST this proposal.

Seventy-fourth, we find that llamas are often appropriate for banjo-making. How will our banjo-making economy survive, pray tell, if we must, provided this resolution is approved, take care of those few llamas which refuse to engage in the proper crafting of said eating utensils? Banjos are extremely important to the ARFI table etiquette and llamas, of course, make the best banjos but often they can be stubborn. Therefore we often encourage them to work more efficiently by throttling them with red-hot metal pitchforks. If we cared for the llamas as this resolution proposes, we would be stuck with a lot of stubborn, lazy llamas. A travesty.

Thank you for your listening and to your ears. May you have a very squalid pasture.

Sincerely,
Rupert Gorthe VIII
ARFI Representative to the World Assembly


THE ARMED REPUBLIC OF FREAKISH IDIOTS
HAD SOMETHING
TO SAY

Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

What about fire fighters?

Who is going to pay for this? I assure you that Zuzakia will provide minimal funding for this.



2) Guarantees the right of all employees to a safe working environment.
How safe exactly? Does this mean that workers are required to remain in padded rooms? Technically, taking a walk is unsafe, because you could trip and fall, or get struck by lightning.


3) Requires that all chemicals be properly labeled, and that safety information be easily accessible in all workplaces pertaining to the chemical that include but are not limited to:
A) Physical data
B) Toxicity
C) Health effects
D) First aid instructions
E) Reactivity
F) Storage
G) Disposal
H) Protective equipment
I) Spill handling procedures
J) Flammability
K) Radioactivity

What about scientific research where the purpose is to discover the properties listed? Since scientists are workers, they cannot work with these chemicals, so they cannot provide information about them, so no one can use them.


4) Requires that all workplaces establish minimum standards for Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) to ensure the safety of employees with full understanding of the hazards and environments employees may face.

This effectively does nothing, since the workplaces already could do this, and because the workplaces can make the minimum standards as lax as they want.



6) Requires that the workplace be reasonably free of safety hazards, that all equipment and tools can be safely operated, and that the workplace be maintained in such a state as long as employees are present.

Who determines what is "reasonable"? Who determines what a "Safety hazard" is?


7) Requires that all employees be trained to safely handle any hazardous materials they are required to work with or near.

I could say that I am not trained to handle a pen, which is a hazardous material because of the possibility of ink poison, because I could occasionally get ink on myself. Or, my employer could say that I am trained to handle extremely dangerous explosives because I've seen someone do it once.


8) Requires that proper training for tool, machine, and motorized vehicle operation be provided when employees are required to use them in the course of their work.

9) Requires a reasonable amount of emergency exits be provided that allow all employees to leave the workplace quickly.

10) Requires that emergency exits be kept accessible and clearly marked.

Again, who decides what "proper training" is, what a "reasonable amount of emergency exits" is, and what "clearly marked" is? Is the WA going to have safety inspectors? Who's going to pay them?


11) Requires that employees not enter or remain at a workplace when their ability to work safely is impaired to the point of endangering themselves or those around them.

This point has been raised: what if the employer decides to fire anyone who is temporarily unable to work? This hurts the employer (because he has to find someone else to work), the worker (because he loses his job), and the economy.

I can't believe this thing is passing three-to-one. I can only imagine that at least a third of the people who've voted for it have never read any of this thread.

This policy is extremly ineffective. It forces people to pay for their own protection. The bill states that the companies must provide standards for saftey, but than says that the company or the worker have to pay for the equipment to be safe. This sounds abusive and harms the individual worker massivly.

Also this again puts un needed burdens on the Corrperation and again the idividual as a result. Who do you think will end up paying for all this in the end, the idividual. Everytime more money is needed from a company they either cut pay, cut hours, or increase the price of their product, or make a cheeper one the is not as good, and sell it at the same price, either way it is bad for the consumer and the worker.

I can't believe this thing is passing three-to-one. I can only imagine that at least a third of the people who've voted for it have never read any of this thread.

OOC:
You can look on the World Assembly sub-forum main page to see how many times this thread has been viewed. I would guess that at most 150 players swing by and glance at the thread.

The Dourian Embassy, You've done it!

At 7,675 votes to 2,513, the Workplace Safety Standards Act is the latest World Assembly Resolution.

The Resolution number will be 7.

Once again, well done on making a contribution to improve the world.