[Grosseschnauzer]

Quote: 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[/quote]

[Lawtonia]

What about Volunteer Workers? They do not receive compensation for their work - financial or otherwise - under this proposal they would not have the right to a safe work place.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Poll Added

[Mikitivity]

I'll have to think about the volunteer works and how the resolution covers them. We could ask Yelda to answer that question.

But I have voted in favour.

[Fonzoland]

LawtoniaFeb 1 2006, 07:09 PM What about Volunteer Workers?  They do not receive compensation for their work - financial or otherwise - under this proposal they would not have the right to a safe work place. [/quote]
The way I see it, if you actually volunteer to do something dangerous getting absolutely nothing in return, it is your business. Most volunteer work is not formally contracted; I fail to see how you could enforce any employer responsibilities in such an environment.

This proposal prohibits employers from forcing people to put their lives at risk for subsistence. It is not intended to stop people from jumping off bridges for fun.

Having said that, if you get a free glass of water per year in your volunteer work, you fall under the scope of this resolution again.

[Groot Gouda]

MikitivityFeb 15 2006, 10:50 PM I'll have to think about the volunteer works and how the resolution covers them. [/quote]
Does that matter though? The resolution doesn't need to cover every possible situation where somebody does some kind of work somewhere...

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaFeb 15 2006, 02:51 PM MikitivityFeb 15 2006, 10:50 PM I'll have to think about the volunteer works and how the resolution covers them. [/quote]
Does that matter though? The resolution doesn't need to cover every possible situation where somebody does some kind of work somewhere... [/quote]
I think the question is worth considering, but I also feel Fonzoland provided a logical explanation why the resolution shouldn't really address volunteer workers.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

There are a couple areas that aren't covered by this that may be issues, such as firefighters, who must... well... go into burning buildings. Beyond that, it doesn't define excessive danger. It also introduces potential problems with sections 7 & 8, in that employers could be held to task for something that they cannot control.

These are minor issues, though, and I believe the resolution is worth support.

PS Will it require postal workers to be issued bullet proof vests as a PPE? Seems like a reasonable precaution in case one of their co-workers... well... you know.

[Eisophca]

Jonquere-TadoussacFeb 16 2006, 01:34 AM There are a couple areas that aren't covered by this that may be issues, such as firefighters, who must... well... go into burning buildings. [/quote]
Just make a law making it illegal for fire to burn down a building. Then firefighters are law enforcement. :123hup:

Ceorana supports this resolution, in spite of a few minor problems.

[Antrium]

I will be casting the region's vote sometime on Saturday, by the way.

[Grosseschnauzer]

The way I read this resolution, it does not apply to volunteers or to persons in high-risk occupations (such as law enforcement and the military). The occupation whose status is ambiguious to me is that of health care.....since there is a high risk of exposure to serious or fatal illness, and because it is impractical to require absolute safety in the usual workplace for that ptofession.

It's a good effort, but I think it still needs some refinement. I'm voting AGAINST the proposal in its current form.

[Keeslandia]

I don't know about this. Especially toward the end, the language actually seems to slant toward the business end of things. I'm especially troubled by #7. Is it just me or does this seem to be justification for lockouts?

I'm just not comfortable with this. It makes me very uneasy. Therefore, the Empire is leaning against this measure.

[Fonzoland]

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.

[Fonzoland]

GrosseschnauzerFeb 16 2006, 04:26 AM The way I read this resolution, it does not apply to volunteers or to persons in high-risk occupations (such as law enforcement and the military). The occupation whose status is ambiguious to me is that of health care.....since there is a high risk of exposure to serious or fatal illness, and because it is impractical to require absolute safety in the usual workplace for that ptofession.

It's a good effort, but I think it still needs some refinement. I'm voting AGAINST the proposal in its current form. [/quote]
Please tell me which clause requires absolute safety.

[Groot Gouda]

Jonquere-TadoussacFeb 16 2006, 03:34 AM There are a couple areas that aren't covered by this that may be issues, such as firefighters, who must... well... go into burning buildings. Beyond that, it doesn't define excessive danger. [/quote]
It doesn't need to. It shouldn't, even, because that varies so much from workplace to workplace. But it's good enough for judges to make a decision.

As far as firefighters and other high-risk jobs are concerned, that will always remain difficult because some jobs have danger as a job description. You can hardly blame the government for making a war bullet-free.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

Quote: 
It doesn't need to. It shouldn't, even, because that varies so much from workplace to workplace. But it's good enough for judges to make a decision.

As far as firefighters and other high-risk jobs are concerned, that will always remain difficult because some jobs have danger as a job description. You can hardly blame the government for making a war bullet-free.[/quote]

I guess this resolution is flexible enough to allow for government measures to fill these gaps. I'm maintaining my support.

As for the firefighters, I like Ceorana's idea. It will soon be illegal for fire to burn down any building in Jonquiere-Tadoussac. Now we just have to build prisons for those offending flames...

[Eisophca]

OFFICIAL RESOLUTION
By the Senate of the Nordic Republic of Ceorana

WHEREAS fire is very dangerous;

WHEREAS that it has a crucial weakness in the form of dihydrogen monoxide;

WHEREAS it is not a human being and therefore not applicable to Ceorana's mandations of fair trials for humans;

THEREFORE, let it be RESOLVED that:

1. It shall now be illegal for any fire to cause any damage to any structure without the owner's consent;

2. Punishment for the above will not include a fair trial, simply copious amounts of water administered by a special law enforcement unit known as the "firefighters";

3. It shall the responsibility of the city-provinces to prepare effective firefighters to stop the above crime.

[Lawtonia]

Lawtonia votes in favour.

[Jonquiere-Tadoussac]

Bill JT-451: The Criminalisation of Fire Act

WHEREAS fire is a noted killer;

WHEREAS fire is known to destroy millions of sous worth of property every year in Jonquiere-Tadoussac;

WHEREAS the people of Jonquiere-Tadoussac live in perpetual fear of fire coming for them;

DEFINING fire as any manifestation of heat and light that is created from the interaction of oxygen in the air with any other substance;

THE CONSULAR COUNCIL OF JONQUIERE-TADOUSSAC HEREBY MANDATES THAT:

1. It shall be declared illegal for fire to:
a ) Damage any property, structure, or natural feature, or;
b ) kill.

2. Any fire violating these restrictions shall be immediately apprehended and incarcerated in a high-security penitentiary constructed for this specific purpose.

3. Failing this, the offending fire shall be terminated with prejudice by
a ) sanctioned law enforcement officials, or;
b ) private citizens, assuming they have given due warning to the fire.

4. Under no circumstances shall a citizen be imprisonned or fined more than 100 sous for terminating a fire.

----

Voting results: Popular Assembly: 312/500 For, motion carried
National Assembly: 67/170 For, motion fails

It remains legal for fire to burn in Jonquiere-Tadoussac. (And the executive was in favour, too...)

[Fonzoland]

I think the problem was clause 1. I suggest:

1. It shall be declared illegal for fire to:
a ) Damage any property, structure, or natural feature, or;
b ) kill, maim, or injure any non-fiery living entities.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

We support this.

[Lawtonia]

Lawtonia does not support the fire resolution as grass, bush, forest fires can be natural phenomenon and are essential to some species propogation and survival. Think outside the box - there is more to the world than just your northern hemisphere climate

[Antrium]

Results:
FOR [ 7 ] [77.78%]
AGAINST [ 2 ] [22.22%]
ABSTAIN [ 0 ] [0.00%]

I will be casting the region's vote FOR the resolution.