[PASSED] RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYED

[La Xinga]

Do any of you see how close the vote is?

No, the link to the WA page redirects me to Rick Astley's hit "Never Gonna Give You Up".

LOL

Anyway, what does The East Pacific WA commission say for this resolution?[/i]

[Wallenburg]

No, the link to the WA page redirects me to Rick Astley's hit "Never Gonna Give You Up".

LOL

Anyway, what does The East Pacific WA commission say for this resolution?[/i]

The ministry seems to lean against, so that's our recommendation.

[La Xinga]

LOL

Anyway, what does The East Pacific WA commission say for this resolution?[/i]

The ministry seems to lean against, so that's our recommendation.

The only problem is that more than half of TEP supports it!

[Heavens Reach]

No, ambassador, I don't think we should.

OOC: because mentally ill doesn't automatically mean low functioning, and because what you suggest would be barbaric anywhere that mental illness doesn't qualify as a disability, and disability status didn't come with some kind of automatic income. Barring that, it would still be both discriminatory and entirely unnecessary. Cynically allowing businesses to liquidate people for their labor, not on their merits, but merely in pursuit of some idealistic perfect bottom-line is exactly the kind of soulless corporate toxicity that we should be working to get away from.

OOC; What if their mental illness makes them really low-productive or dangerous, like exploding a nuclear plant?

OOC: What mental illness are you imagining and how do you see it resulting in the explosion of a nuclear power plant?

[La Xinga]

OOC; What if their mental illness makes them really low-productive or dangerous, like exploding a nuclear plant?

OOC: What mental illness are you imagining and how do you see it resulting in the explosion of a nuclear power plant?

I'm not talking about anything, remember, this NS is not RL. There could be a disease that has the person go out of his mind.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: What mental illness are you imagining and how do you see it resulting in the explosion of a nuclear power plant?

I'm not talking about anything, remember, this NS is not RL. There could be a disease that has the person go out of his mind.

OOC: okay, what fictional mental illness are you imagining and how do you see it resulting in the explosion of a nuclear power plant?

[La Xinga]

I'm not talking about anything, remember, this NS is not RL. There could be a disease that has the person go out of his mind.

OOC: okay, what fictional mental illness are you imagining and how do you see it resulting in the explosion of a nuclear power plant?

Fictional could mean anything! The guy could go crazy and do......anything!!!


If people shall hire him, he can do stuff with controls and kill everything.

[Heavens Reach]

Fictional could mean anything! The guy could go crazy and do......anything!!!

OOC: Even good fiction is realistic.

[La Xinga]

Fictional could mean anything! The guy could go crazy and do......anything!!!

OOC: Even good fiction is realistic.

it could be the nation-maker is really bad at nation-making, and isn't so good and makes a disease like that.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: Even good fiction is realistic.

it could be the nation-maker is really bad at nation-making, and isn't so good and makes a disease like that.

OOC: Yeah, but at some point we're just calling a condition a mental illness without any sort of justification. If it doesn't conform to some denotational standard, we can freely label anything a mental illness. Luckily, when it comes to things like that NS usually just adopts the definitions of the real world (unless a proposal specifically defines a term otherwise).

[La Xinga]

it could be the nation-maker is really bad at nation-making, and isn't so good and makes a disease like that.

OOC: Yeah, but at some point we're just calling a condition a mental illness without any sort of justification. If it doesn't conform to some denotational standard, we can freely label anything a mental illness. Luckily, when it comes to things like that NS usually just adopts the definitions of the real world (unless a proposal specifically defines a term otherwise).

What do you say "mental-illness" should mean?

[Heavens Reach]

What do you say "mental-illness" should mean?

OOC: exactly what the psychological community accepts it to mean. A diathesis-stress, sociobiological phenomenon which, at a minimum, causes distress, deviance or dysfunction, as those terms are defined in clinical practice. That's the current accepted standard of mental illness. That means there has to be an underlying biological predisposing context which can be manifested by stress, that may or may not be susceptible to social and environmental context, which causes emotional harm to, unusual thinking in, and/or loss of function in the person who experiences it. The condition you describe -- someone just "losing" it, by which I take you to mean someone who acts in a dangerous, illogical and destructive manner -- isn't specific to mental illness, and isn't diagnostic of it.

[Liberimery]

Fictional could mean anything! The guy could go crazy and do......anything!!!

OOC: Even good fiction is realistic.

I have read fiction where a man came from an exploding planet and can fly.

Or that a dude breaks into a planetoids sized space station to rescue a princess that is his long lost fraternal twin who is being jailed by the princess (and hero’s) samurai space wizard father after the father’s samurai space wizard teacher encourages the lad upon receiving the princess’ message from a beeping trash can and a gold robot that was built by the samurai space wizard father when he was a space chariot racing slave boy. Oh and the hero and princess twins kiss and the film that happens is considered the best of the 9 films (and one of the best films of all time) because somewhere an Orange rabbit frog man who we’re expected to believe someone actually tolerates enough to let him follow him around.

Suffice to say fiction hardly has to be realistic.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: Even good fiction is realistic.

I have read fiction where a man came from an exploding planet and can fly.

Or that a dude breaks into a planetoids sized space station to rescue a princess that is his long lost fraternal twin who is being jailed by the princess (and hero’s) samurai space wizard father after the father’s samurai space wizard teacher encourages the lad upon receiving the princess’ message from a beeping trash can and a gold robot that was built by the samurai space wizard father when he was a space chariot racing slave boy. Oh and the hero and princess twins kiss and the film that happens is considered the best of the 9 films (and one of the best films of all time) because somewhere an Orange rabbit frog man who we’re expected to believe someone actually tolerates enough to let him follow him around.

Suffice to say fiction hardly has to be realistic.

OOC: this is hardly my main argument.

Edit: also, I did say good fiction, but when I said realistic I should probably more have liked to say logical, but I didn't find the best word at the time.

[Picairn]

Holy sh**, the margin just got thinner. I may have witnessed the second case of "a 51% majority dictates the other 49%" in my life, after the Brexit vote.

[SuSouth Socialist Union]

How can workers have such little rights? You're a capitalist who squeezes workers
1.Employers must pay medical insurance, unemployment insurance, work-related injury insurance and maternity insurance to their employees.
2.Employees have paid leave every year and no less than one week.
3.The employer must inform the employee one month before the layoff, otherwise it will compensate more than twice the salary of the month
4.The government should provide free legal aid and lawyers when there is a dispute between employees and employers.
5.Businesses need to provide the government and trade unions with monthly updates on employees below the minimum wage to help the government assess whether there is exploitation of workers.
6.Men are entitled to more than two weeks' maternity leave when their wives give birth.In addition, bereavement leave,sick leave and marriage leave are also required.

And please don't bring the baby to the company. The company will pay her for a baby sitter. If I had all the kids in the workplace, I would have collapsed

[Tinhampton]

How can workers have such little rights? You're a capitalist who squeezes workers
1.Employers must pay medical insurance, unemployment insurance, work-related injury insurance and maternity insurance to their employees.
2.Employees have paid leave every year and no less than one week.
3.The employer must inform the employee one month before the layoff, otherwise it will compensate more than twice the salary of the month
4.The government should provide free legal aid and lawyers when there is a dispute between employees and employers.
5.Businesses need to provide the government and trade unions with monthly updates on employees below the minimum wage to help the government assess whether there is exploitation of workers.
6.Men are entitled to more than two weeks' maternity leave when their wives give birth.In addition, bereavement leave,sick leave and marriage leave are also required.

And please don't bring the baby to the company. The company will pay her for a baby sitter. If I had all the kids in the workplace, I would have collapsed

1: Insurance is not within the remit of this proposal; a Tinhamptonian employer would see little need for medical insurance etc. when universal healthcare is already in place.
2/6: Rights of the Employed sets a minimum level of eight weeks' parental leave; your nation is welcome to extend this or introduce other forms of paid leave.
3: This proposal is neutral with regards to notice periods before hiring and firing - it simply requires that workers not be dismissed on the grounds of their sex or gender, their claiming of parental leave, or their participation in a trial or tribunal regarding discrimination in the workplace.
4: Agreed and allowed under GA#37, FURTHER INSISTS.
5: Why would you admit to paying workers a subminimum wage? See also GA#344.

Creches are also implicitly permitted under the terms of this proposal, lol

[Amblegreserland]

Can I ask some questions regarding the bill?

1) Though the bill is intended to ensure "a range of rights for workers", the bill does not mention how freelance workers and most contractors would benefit from it. Could you clarify on that?

2) How do you intend employees to prove to their employers the need for breastfeeding at work?

3) The proposal mandates that "a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in [the] workplace, separate from any toilets" exists solely for breastfeeding. Can you explain how small businesses would afford such an area?

4) Certain professions including wrestling are built around experiencing intimidating behaviour. A blanket ban of such would thus not be feasible unless such professions are banned.

Although the motion is commendable, there are some parts of it that need clarification. Thanks.

[Tinhampton]

Can I ask some questions regarding the bill?

1) Though the bill is intended to ensure "a range of rights for workers", the bill does not mention how freelance workers and most contractors would benefit from it. Could you clarify on that?

2) How do you intend employees to prove to their employers the need for breastfeeding at work?

3) The proposal mandates that "a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in [the] workplace, separate from any toilets" exists solely for breastfeeding. Can you explain how small businesses would afford such an area?

4) Certain professions including wrestling are built around experiencing intimidating behaviour. A blanket ban of such would thus not be feasible unless such professions are banned.

Although the motion is commendable, there are some parts of it that need clarification. Thanks.

1: See Section B.

2: As Araraukar said earlier, I'm confident that workers will be able to seek out formula milk and daycare in enough quantities to avoid this. If they absolutely must, then they can prove it accordingly to their employers.

3: Government subsidisation, perhaps - no method of funding is prescribed or prohibited in Article E3.

4: Wrestlers aren't normally intimidated while at work

[Ethnic Nations]

What do you say "mental-illness" should mean?

OOC: exactly what the psychological community accepts it to mean. A diathesis-stress, sociobiological phenomenon which, at a minimum, causes distress, deviance or dysfunction, as those terms are defined in clinical practice. That's the current accepted standard of mental illness. That means there has to be an underlying biological predisposing context which can be manifested by stress, that may or may not be susceptible to social and environmental context, which causes emotional harm to, unusual thinking in, and/or loss of function in the person who experiences it. The condition you describe -- someone just "losing" it, by which I take you to mean someone who acts in a dangerous, illogical and destructive manner -- isn't specific to mental illness, and isn't diagnostic of it.

OOC: The definition you gave seems to perfectly fit transgenders. They have a high degree of distress which causes them emotional harm which is responsible for their 43% suicide rate, higher than any other group. Now imagine letting someone from such an emotionally unstable group work at a nuclear power plant. Also, believing that you're a gender which you're not is most certainly a "deviance".

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: exactly what the psychological community accepts it to mean. A diathesis-stress, sociobiological phenomenon which, at a minimum, causes distress, deviance or dysfunction, as those terms are defined in clinical practice. That's the current accepted standard of mental illness. That means there has to be an underlying biological predisposing context which can be manifested by stress, that may or may not be susceptible to social and environmental context, which causes emotional harm to, unusual thinking in, and/or loss of function in the person who experiences it. The condition you describe -- someone just "losing" it, by which I take you to mean someone who acts in a dangerous, illogical and destructive manner -- isn't specific to mental illness, and isn't diagnostic of it.

OOC: The definition you gave seems to perfectly fit transgenders. They have a high degree of distress which causes them emotional harm which is responsible for their 43% suicide rate, higher than any other group. Now imagine letting someone from such an emotionally unstable group work at a nuclear power plant. Also, believing that you're a gender which you're not is most certainly a "deviance".

OOC: "Transgenders" isn't a word. The distress that many transgender individuals feel is caused by societal pressures, vis a vis systemic oppression, physical and nonphysical violence, erasure and invalidation. Health outcomes for transgender individuals, including mental health outcomes, are worse across the board in geographic locations with higher rates of transphobia and anti-trans crime, as well as for those who are denied access to affirmative healthcare. You are also not using the clinical definition of deviance, which does not refer to breaking with majority norms, but to breaking with mental health norms, i.e. behavior that has a high chance of leading to an inability to healthily interact with the social context under nonabusive conditions. Finally, there is no major health organization, nor diagnostic manual in the world that finds evidence, nor supports the conclusion, that gender identity not conforming with sex assigned at birth is classifiable as a mental illness. Neither the AMA, the APA, nor the WHO, nor the DSM5, nor the ICD-10 classify any illness that is predicated solely upon having a gender identity that does not conform with sex assigned at birth.

"Emotionally unstable" is not a mental illness; it is a non-scientific, non-medical, non-legal, term for an informally defined, transient, condition that is neither specific to, nor diagnostic of, mental illness.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: you should probably also stop wasting space on a thread intended to promote discussion about an in-game proposal to promote your non-scientific views about mental illness.

In case you got lost: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewforum.php?f=20

[The Palentine]

OOC: The definition you gave seems to perfectly fit transgenders. They have a high degree of distress which causes them emotional harm which is responsible for their 43% suicide rate, higher than any other group. Now imagine letting someone from such an emotionally unstable group work at a nuclear power plant. Also, believing that you're a gender which you're not is most certainly a "deviance".

OOC: "Transgenders" isn't a word. The distress that many transgender individuals feel is caused by societal pressures, vis a vis systemic oppression, physical and nonphysical violence, erasure and invalidation. Health outcomes for transgender individuals, including mental health outcomes, are worse across the board in geographic locations with higher rates of transphobia and anti-trans crime, as well as for those who are denied access to affirmative healthcare. You are also not using the clinical definition of deviance, which does not refer to breaking with majority norms, but to breaking with mental health norms, i.e. behavior that has a high chance of leading to an inability to healthily interact with the social context under nonabusive conditions. Finally, there is no major health organization, nor diagnostic manual in the world that finds evidence, nor supports the conclusion, that gender identity not conforming with sex assigned at birth is classifiable as a mental illness. Neither the AMA, the APA, nor the WHO, nor the DSM5, nor the ICD-10 classify any illness that is predicated solely upon having a gender identity that does not conform with sex assigned at birth.

"Emotionally unstable" is not a mental illness; it is a non-scientific, non-medical, non-legal, term for an informally defined, transient, condition that is neither specific to, nor diagnostic of, mental illness.

OOC: As facinating as this little tangent is, I fail to see the relevance to the proposal in question. I would humbly ask this discussion about semantics please be taken elsewhere, like maybe General.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: As facinating as this little tangent is, I fail to see the relevance to the proposal in question. I would humbly ask this discussion about semantics please be taken elsewhere, like maybe General.

OOC: Already covered this.

[Servilis]

this vote really tearin thru the WA

its centrists vs. leftists