02-16-2006, 12:43 PM
I believe many of the concerns presented here are moot. The wording of this resolution is intentionally flexible. However, it is wrong to interpret this as opening the door for abuse by employers and/or employees. You should always keep in mind that a resolution is binding on the government, not on the citizens. We are the ones who pass the laws citizens must follow.
So, taking an example, the UN imposes that employers may prevent workers from entering work if they constitute a hazard. You, as a national leader, are forced to pass a law in that direction, but you are free to make detailed laws specifying the exact circumstances under which the employer can do this, eg if the employee is demonstrably drunk or high on drugs.
Similarly, you are allowed to specify what constitutes "a reasonable effort," "as fully as possible," and other flexible terms therein. This is in my view a desirable feature - the resolution can be adapted to the specific circumstances of the country.
So, taking an example, the UN imposes that employers may prevent workers from entering work if they constitute a hazard. You, as a national leader, are forced to pass a law in that direction, but you are free to make detailed laws specifying the exact circumstances under which the employer can do this, eg if the employee is demonstrably drunk or high on drugs.
Similarly, you are allowed to specify what constitutes "a reasonable effort," "as fully as possible," and other flexible terms therein. This is in my view a desirable feature - the resolution can be adapted to the specific circumstances of the country.