Advertisement
by Araraukar » Fri May 01, 2020 5:48 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Greater Soviet North America » Fri May 01, 2020 7:09 pm
Araraukar wrote:OOC: So how is this not unfair discrimination based on sex? As in, contradicting CoCR? Positive discrimination (giving one group of people more rights than others) is still discrimination.
Diplomatic Mission of The Greater Soviet North America |
by Araraukar » Sat May 02, 2020 11:12 am
The Greater Soviet North America wrote:"The Charter of Civil Rights has a focus on guaranteeing rights to everybody without exception.
However, the Charter of Civil Rights does not have the necessary focus to protect the rights of women in the workforce.
This resolution doesn't give women in the workforce more rights than men; it gives women rights in areas that affect women. Unless, of course, we should give men maternity leave when they are pregnant or a period of their working day for breastfeeding."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Greater Soviet North America » Sat May 02, 2020 11:45 am
Araraukar wrote:The Greater Soviet North America wrote:"The Charter of Civil Rights has a focus on guaranteeing rights to everybody without exception.
OOC: Yes. So, in any nations that are going to be compliant with it, everyone already has the same rights. Nations that aren't compliant with it, aren't going to be compliant with any amount of resolutions.However, the Charter of Civil Rights does not have the necessary focus to protect the rights of women in the workforce.
It's because CoCR is a human rights resolution, not a working rights one.This resolution doesn't give women in the workforce more rights than men; it gives women rights in areas that affect women. Unless, of course, we should give men maternity leave when they are pregnant or a period of their working day for breastfeeding."
You absolutely should. In fact, the whole issue here would go away if you made it sex/gender neutral. You're not writing a law for the Real Life world, and not all nations are populated by humans. Rather than focus on one sex of one species, write the resolution so it gives the same rights to any person of any species, who has given birth or is breastfeeding (I'd suggest adding "incubating", if you want to be fully inclusive) or in general very tightly tied to the health of the newborn. You could name it something like "Rights of Working Parents". You'd have a more inclusive, RP-friendly proposal that wouldn't generate the kneejerk reaction against positive discrimination.
Diplomatic Mission of The Greater Soviet North America |
by Araraukar » Sat May 02, 2020 11:47 am
The Greater Soviet North America wrote:However, I do not know if you have read the most recent and updated version of the proposal, but it has been modified in order to be more inclusive.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Greater Soviet North America » Sat May 02, 2020 11:55 am
Diplomatic Mission of The Greater Soviet North America |
by The New Nordic Union » Sat May 02, 2020 12:11 pm
The Greater Soviet North America wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: I read it before I commented. It's still aimed at women.
It is not aimed at human beings only; it is aimed at all organisms that identify as females and includes those that identify as males and non-binary individuals. The language is inclusive; if you have any actual ideas or thoughts in how to make it "more inclusive" for your own pleasure, then go ahead and tell me.
by Kenmoria » Sat May 02, 2020 2:16 pm
The Greater Soviet North America wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: I read it before I commented. It's still aimed at women.
It is not aimed at human beings only; it is aimed at all organisms that identify as females and includes those that identify as males and non-binary individuals. The language is inclusive; if you have any actual ideas or thoughts in how to make it "more inclusive" for your own pleasure, then go ahead and tell me.
by Ardiveds » Mon May 04, 2020 8:23 am
by The Greater Soviet North America » Mon May 04, 2020 8:37 am
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: All the clauses not dealing with meternity leave or breast feeding seem to be perfectly applicable to both sexes and genders (or all if u wanna go further). Discrimination based on gender or protection against sexual harrassment in the work place can be applicable to both men and women. If this was only about the the maternity leave and breast feeding, it'd be understandable but this just gives women rights and protections in places both men and women should have.
Diplomatic Mission of The Greater Soviet North America |
by The New Nordic Union » Mon May 04, 2020 8:53 am
Ardiveds wrote:OOC: All the clauses not dealing with meternity leave or breast feeding seem to be perfectly applicable to both sexes and genders (or all if u wanna go further). Discrimination based on gender or protection against sexual harrassment in the work place can be applicable to both men and women. If this was only about the the maternity leave and breast feeding, it'd be understandable but this just gives women rights and protections in places both men and women should have.
by Ardiveds » Mon May 04, 2020 9:36 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC: And why oh why should protection from termination on grounds of pregnancy, rights concerning breastfeeding, and guaranteed maternity leave only be applicable to 'working women', who by the definition under A, are all female? (Especially if adoption is included, which even among humans, where most children are born by females, would be available to all other sexes as well? Not to speak of the multitude of other species that are part of the world assembly).
If all mandates in the resolution were made applicable to all people, a clause such as clause F would be unnecessary.
by Kenmoria » Mon May 04, 2020 10:00 am
Ardiveds wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC: And why oh why should protection from termination on grounds of pregnancy, rights concerning breastfeeding, and guaranteed maternity leave only be applicable to 'working women', who by the definition under A, are all female? (Especially if adoption is included, which even among humans, where most children are born by females, would be available to all other sexes as well? Not to speak of the multitude of other species that are part of the world assembly).
If all mandates in the resolution were made applicable to all people, a clause such as clause F would be unnecessary.
OOC: I guess my opinion was a bit human centric and even then paternity leave is also a thing.
by La Xinga » Mon May 04, 2020 11:26 am
by La Xinga » Mon May 04, 2020 11:28 am
The Greater Soviet North America wrote:Ardiveds wrote:OOC: All the clauses not dealing with meternity leave or breast feeding seem to be perfectly applicable to both sexes and genders (or all if u wanna go further). Discrimination based on gender or protection against sexual harrassment in the work place can be applicable to both men and women. If this was only about the the maternity leave and breast feeding, it'd be understandable but this just gives women rights and protections in places both men and women should have.
Thank you very much. At least someone sees it.
by Great Nortend » Mon May 04, 2020 8:57 pm
by The Greater Soviet North America » Sun May 17, 2020 8:16 am
Diplomatic Mission of The Greater Soviet North America |
by La Xinga » Sun May 17, 2020 8:21 am
The Greater Soviet North America wrote:The Greater Soviet North America wrote:(Image)
Rights of the Employed
A resolution to improve worldwidehumanindividual and civil rights.Category: Civil RightsStrength: StrongProposed by: The Greater Soviet North America
Co-authored by Tinhampton
The World Assembly,
Taking note of the numerous national and international laws that recognize a range of rights for workers;
Noting with regret that, despite all the rights that cover the previously cited laws, the workforce is still struggling to assert those rights;
Deeply concern that this governing body does not have a resolution explicitly stating the rights of workers in their place of employment;
- Defines a "worker" as an individual who currently has a contract with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular monetary reward;
- Declares accordingly that this resolution, although not an exhaustive list of the rights possessed by all workers, is intended to ensure that they are aware of the rights they hold by law, as well as any protections from the unjust treatment they may be subjected to;
- Further declares accordingly that this resolution shall be applicable to all workers, except for Article E(3), which applies only to workers of lactating species such as humans and cows;
- Clarifies that workers in Member States shall enjoy protection from:
- dismissal, suspension from work, discrimination, and salary reduction as a result of childbirth or claiming maternity, paternity, and adoption leave ("parental leave");
- discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, gender expression or sexual identity, including pay discrimination and unfair dismissal;
- being subject to hostile, offensive or intimidating behavior (including sexual harassment, domestic violence, and other unwanted approaches) as a condition of becoming or remaining employed, or otherwise in the course of their employment; and
- being retaliated against by their employer for participating in a trial or tribunal regarding discriminatory employment practices;
- Further clarifies that each worker in Member States:
- shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;
- shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;
- who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace shall be entitled to:
- a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in that workplace, separate from any toilets that may exist on-site, which shall be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding; and
- a period of the working day set aside for breastfeeding; which shall be equal to one-eighth of their working day, may also be divided into two or three equal periods and must be guaranteed for up to one year after the end of their parental leave;
- Encourages employers to promulgate policies on sexual harassment in the workplace, including by establishing fair and effective internal tribunals to deal with complaints thereof.
My resolution is on Last Call. I am going to submit it in maybe a couple of days
by Foril » Sun May 17, 2020 8:56 am
by Tinhampton » Sun May 17, 2020 9:17 am
Foril wrote:A) Isn’t E1 and E2 duplicated? Is there a reason that there are two clauses for different lengths of parental leave?
B) I would also like to point out that this resolution does not cover unpaid interns or non-contract workers. Therefore, interns who may have just had a baby cannot breastfeed their children at work? Is that the aim of this resolution?
C) Is there already a resolution on paid holidays for workers? If not, you could add a clause in for that.
by Foril » Sun May 17, 2020 10:53 am
Tinhampton wrote:Foril wrote:A) Isn’t E1 and E2 duplicated? Is there a reason that there are two clauses for different lengths of parental leave?
B) I would also like to point out that this resolution does not cover unpaid interns or non-contract workers. Therefore, interns who may have just had a baby cannot breastfeed their children at work? Is that the aim of this resolution?
C) Is there already a resolution on paid holidays for workers? If not, you could add a clause in for that.
A: No. Workers are (1) entitled to at least eight weeks of parental leave in this resoluion; of which they (2) may use at least four weeks after giving birth or adopting, AND (3) may use up to four weeks before giving birth.
B: The definition used here of a "worker" is very roughly equivalent to the definition of a worker in English and Welsh law - which requires by definition that all workers are contracted. Thank you, either way; I've had a word with the author about amending the definition to include those shadowing workers.
C: I believe that Cosmo's proposal on this matter was defeated after he noticed some fundamental flaws with it.
by Tinhampton » Fri May 22, 2020 8:25 am
by Kenmoria » Fri May 22, 2020 8:29 am
by Slaughter None » Fri May 22, 2020 9:42 am
by Kenmoria » Fri May 22, 2020 9:54 am
Slaughter none wrote:You have not included protection from discrimination for gender (different from "gender identity"), caste, creed, religion,race,age or even political opinion.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Valentine Z
Advertisement