[PASSED] RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYED

[Christian Democrats]

Really? This proposal would require every employer to have a room "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding."



This requirement would impose an unnecessary and costly burden on small employers, especially if there is only one breastfeeding employee. Why does there have to be a room whose "sole purpose" is breastfeeding? Why can't an employer use a multi-purpose room?

[Araraukar]

Really? This proposal would require every employer to have a room "reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding."

This requirement would impose an unnecessary and costly burden on small employers, especially if there is only one breastfeeding employee. Why does there have to be a room whose "sole purpose" is breastfeeding? Why can't an employer use a multi-purpose room?

OOC: I thought that at first too, but it's only for cases where there is an employee who has no choice but breastfeed the baby during the workday. Which, in the era of formulas and bottlefeeding and daycare, is not a necessity. So basically, if everyone can afford daycare in your nation, it won't be an issue. Only if they can't afford either daycare or reconstituted/donated milk.

[Tinhampton]

This proposal reached quorum at 0123 BST - about three-and-a-half hours before it was set to drop out of queue - following the approval of Nacho cheese. To celebrate, I have whipped out the old "QUORUM YAY" UN Card that used to be somewhat commonplace in this august body's forebear.

AS OF 0130 BST ON MONDAY: Approvals: 79 out of 79 needed (The Greater Low Countries, United England n Wales, Riocht mor Daraen, Crupt Quela, Castilistan, Ilmarene, Dead I Jack, Mikeswill, Ostrovskiy, Paneer Ki Sabzi, Folgoria, Nouvelle Maison, Smiley Bob, North Kalsennia, Thembria SSR, SFR Philippines, Chuck Norris Haters, Mother Bear, Spartakoi, Savonian Socialists, United Massachusetts, Horden, United Calanworie, Truther, Kamchakta, Ashaie, South Reinkalistan, Fed Dusistan, Imperium Anglorum, Binnen de Ring, Southern and Northern Caledonia, Danieldan0, Sail Nation, The Hellespont, Bloing, Hectore, Setnei, Zentata, Eriksonia, FORKTASTICSTAN, Sedgistan, The Age of Utopia, Geografika, New Skandenivia, McMasterdonia, Medoynia, Nghymru, Dome Artan, Afarmania, Lowelian, San Lumen, Omaha Utopia, Zombiedolphins, Karteria, Breadoria, Depeche Mode To Joy, Akarea, The Legion of Mankind, The Flyin, Toopaka, Llorens, Drachmia, Eleuthernia, Omniabstracta, South Krimelski, Chanhu-Daro, Candensia, Itenis, Potato Valley Region, Alcala-Cordel, Infernia, Amblibahdesh, Daxtastic18, Danhela, Darbilana, Cyndorr, Deathfall, Dua Sicilia, Nacho cheese)

[Australian rePublic]

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

So what about tiny restaurants who don't have the space to provide ventelated breast feeding rooms? What about doctor's surgeries who don't have the space to provide breast feeding rooms? What about bars and night club? Why would it even be appropriate to take your baby to a bar or night club? What about tiny office buildings that don't ave the space to provide breast feeding rooms? What about factories which don't... not everybody works in a giant building

[Flying Eagles]

This resolution only includes several rights. It misses on race, disability, and many others. If this is a catch-all for what was not covered by GA#035, then why does it only cover workers? This resolution makes no sense to us.

[Australian rePublic]

1) This is merely a draft of the law.
2) This law focuses on the rights of women in the workforce, who continue to struggle to exercise those same rights.
3) If you want to submit a law on the rights of men, go ahead.
4) This law does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender.

OOC:
Point 2. Is RP policing.
Some nations might not care about gender whilst others might have more sexism against men.

Point 2 contradicts point 4

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
Point 2. Is RP policing.
Some nations might not care about gender whilst others might have more sexism against men.

Point 2 contradicts point 4

(OOC: The draft has now been updated so that this is no longer an issue. See the most recent version of the proposal; it doesn’t pay specific attention to any one gender.

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

So what about tiny restaurants who don't have the space to provide ventelated breast feeding rooms? What about doctor's surgeries who don't have the space to provide breast feeding rooms? What about bars and night club? Why would it even be appropriate to take your baby to a bar or night club? What about tiny office buildings that don't ave the space to provide breast feeding rooms? What about factories which don't... not everybody works in a giant building

Somebody being unable to breastfeed an infant is actually quite an unlikely scenario, so this shouldn’t be that much of a problem. I don’t think that one requires a ‘giant building’ in order to house a single room, since that room could be rather small in size. The biggest issue I can see would be a workplace in which there aren’t any rooms, for example a safari. Even in this case, providing an outhouse of sorts shouldn’t be that much of a burden.)

[Australian rePublic]

Somebody being unable to breastfeed an infant is actually quite an unlikely scenario, so this shouldn’t be that much of a problem. I don’t think that one requires a ‘giant building’ in order to house a single room, since that room could be rather small in size. The biggest issue I can see would be a workplace in which there aren’t any rooms, for example a safari. Even in this case, providing an outhouse of sorts shouldn’t be that much of a burden.)

OOC: I've worked in buildings small enough to suggest otherwise. Many buildings, especially resturants, are quite small. Ever been to a restaurant with the toilet out the back? Same toilet for staff and customers? You have to walk past the kitchen and everything. I've worked in, and been a customer in such restaurants. A family member of mine has also owned such a shop. I'll repeat what I said earlier... what if the building is too small for a breast feeding room? And even if there was space to install one (9/10 there's not), who's gonna pay for it? And who's gonna pay the rent for it? And what happens to that room if there aren't any women who are currently nursing?

As for working outdoors, maybe on Safari or something like that, you might be able to get away with it, maybe, especially if you have a consistant unchanging route. Maybe. But good luck trying to sell the instalation of breast feeding sites in places where there aren't adequate public toilets

Now, how does this apply to flight attendents? Or miners? Or what ever a train's equivilant of a flight attendant is called? Or rather, what if the nursing woman is a pilot, or bus driver, or train driver? What if she's a taxi driver?

Is the woman still entitled to.a breast feeding room if she's on a business flight? What if she's driving from ome client's home to another client's home? And for that matter, does the compulsory breast feeding room rule apply to people who visit other people's houses for a living? What about real estate agents? Women who work at cemeteries? People who work at places of worship? Door to door saleswomen? How do you plan to impose such a requirement for door-to-door slaes women? There's a reason why such laws don't exist IRL

[Ardiveds]

...

So what about tiny restaurants who don't have the space to provide ventelated breast feeding rooms? What about doctor's surgeries who don't have the space to provide breast feeding rooms? What about bars and night club? Why would it even be appropriate to take your baby to a bar or night club? What about tiny office buildings that don't ave the space to provide breast feeding rooms? What about factories which don't... not everybody works in a giant building

Somebody being unable to breastfeed an infant is actually quite an unlikely scenario, so this shouldn’t be that much of a problem. I don’t think that one requires a ‘giant building’ in order to house a single room, since that room could be rather small in size. The biggest issue I can see would be a workplace in which there aren’t any rooms, for example a safari. Even in this case, providing an outhouse of sorts shouldn’t be that much of a burden.)

OOC: And what if its a really small local business that literally has one or two really small rooms anyway? Reserving a room just for a chance that someone that needs to breastfeed their baby happens to get employed seems rather problematic. I mean you can't just make a whole room within days whenever the need arises.

[Australian rePublic]

Somebody being unable to breastfeed an infant is actually quite an unlikely scenario, so this shouldn’t be that much of a problem. I don’t think that one requires a ‘giant building’ in order to house a single room, since that room could be rather small in size. The biggest issue I can see would be a workplace in which there aren’t any rooms, for example a safari. Even in this case, providing an outhouse of sorts shouldn’t be that much of a burden.)

OOC: And what if its a really small local business that literally has one or two really small rooms anyway? Reserving a room just for a chance that someone that needs to breastfeed their baby happens to get employed seems rather problematic. I mean you can't just make a whole room within days whenever the need arises.

My sentiments exactly. Another reason why this favours large buildings (such as office towers) is that the sheer number of people in that building would suggest that, statistically, you could assume that there are enough women nursing a baby on any given week to justify it, the same can't be said about small business which would have maybe one or two women nursing at a time, and at other times, go months, or even years, without mothers who are nursing. And do customers also get to use those facilities. If customers don't get to use those facilities, there's going to be trouble. And if customers do get to use those facilities, there's going to be even more trouble. This now begs the next question:

Where does one hygenically place a baby in a restaurant?

[Agualia]

Hello. Can I ask what is the difference between E1 & E2?

[Tinhampton]

Hello. Can I ask what is the difference between E1 & E2?

As I said earlier: "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."

Regarding the requirement for breastfeeding rooms: GSNA's original draft required that such rooms be separate from the toilets and I rewrote the proposal accordingly. I'm broadly agreed with Ara but (if this fails) I suspect this mandate might be reformulated in the redraft.

[Agualia]

Hello. Can I ask what is the difference between E1 & E2?

As I said earlier: "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."

Regarding the requirement for breastfeeding rooms: GSNA's original draft required that such rooms be separate from the toilets and I rewrote the proposal accordingly. I'm broadly agreed with Ara but (if this fails) I suspect this mandate might be reformulated in the redraft.

In my opinion, there is going to be a large number of people who will not understand this; the explanation was much clearer; of course in my opinion!
The rest of the resolution looks very good and is very well written; well done!

[Wallenburg]

This is now at Vote.

[Heavens Reach]

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, including those individuals who are currently shadowing workers or are working as interns for that employer

Ambassador, this is an extremely narrow definition of "worker" -- most workers are not contracted to provide their labor. This essentially only protects educated professionals and freelancers. Voting for this resolution in its present form would undermine future efforts to protect a larger working demographic. If the proposal is retracted, and worker redefined, we will reconsider this proposal. In its present form, we must vote against. This is lamentable as we strongly believe in the necessity of a similar resolution.

[Kenmoria]

“As a result of the provision needlessly requiring an entirely separate room for breastfeeding, even in a workplace where this is not appropriate, I will be voting against this piece of legislation.”

[The New Nordic Union]

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, including those individuals who are currently shadowing workers or are working as interns for that employer

Ambassador, this is an extremely narrow definition of "worker" -- most workers are not contracted to provide their labor. This essentially only protects educated professionals and freelancers. Voting for this resolution in its present form would undermine future efforts to protect a larger working demographic. If the proposal is retracted, and worker redefined, we will reconsider this proposal. In its present form, we must vote against. This is lamentable as we strongly believe in the necessity of a similar resolution.

'While it is true that certain forms of employment are not covered by the resolution, especially, contrary to your opinion, freelancers in most cases (because they receive no regular monetary reward), most others are included - especially so the labourer you seem to have in mind, and not only professionals.'

[Disgraces]

Why tf y'all voting against?

[Absentia]

Why tf y'all voting against?

Because the title is inaccurate (this is worker parental rights not comprehensive worker rights), because the 'must have a room dedicated solely to breastfeeding' requirement is absolutely unworkable in many situations (such as small, independent shops that do not have spare rooms), and because it does not adequately address the potential non-RW social and biological arrangements that may be possible (K-breeding species that constantly reproduce, massively polyamorous marriages, etc).

[Heavens Reach]

Ambassador, this is an extremely narrow definition of "worker" -- most workers are not contracted to provide their labor. This essentially only protects educated professionals and freelancers. Voting for this resolution in its present form would undermine future efforts to protect a larger working demographic. If the proposal is retracted, and worker redefined, we will reconsider this proposal. In its present form, we must vote against. This is lamentable as we strongly believe in the necessity of a similar resolution.

'While it is true that certain forms of employment are not covered by the resolution, especially, contrary to your opinion, freelancers in most cases (because they receive no regular monetary reward), most others are included - especially so the labourer you seem to have in mind, and not only professionals.'

We disagree with the assertion, ambassador, that labourers are protected by this proposal, which stipulates that only contractual workers qualify for any of its enumerated protections. In most fields of employment, particularly those of the least well compensated labourers, employment is at will, and not the result of contract.

[The New Nordic Union]

'While it is true that certain forms of employment are not covered by the resolution, especially, contrary to your opinion, freelancers in most cases (because they receive no regular monetary reward), most others are included - especially so the labourer you seem to have in mind, and not only professionals.'

We disagree with the assertion, ambassador, that labourers are protected by this proposal, which stipulates that only contractual workers qualify for any of its enumerated protections. In most fields of employment, particularly those of the least well compensated labourers, employment is at will, and not the result of contract.

'At-will employment simplifies the termination of employment, that does not mean the relation is not a contractual one.'

[Heavens Reach]

We disagree with the assertion, ambassador, that labourers are protected by this proposal, which stipulates that only contractual workers qualify for any of its enumerated protections. In most fields of employment, particularly those of the least well compensated labourers, employment is at will, and not the result of contract.

'At-will employment simplifies the termination of employment, that does not mean the relation is not a contractual one.'

That is precisely what it means, ambassador.

[The New Nordic Union]

'At-will employment simplifies the termination of employment, that does not mean the relation is not a contractual one.'

That is precisely what it means, ambassador.

'Not in the Nordic Union, and not in any jurisdiction that we know of.'

OOC: Not even in the RL USA, which I believe is the jurisdiction to which most people here are best accustomed.

[Heavens Reach]

That is precisely what it means, ambassador.

'Not in the Nordic Union, and not in any jurisdiction that we know of.'

OOC: Not even in the RL USA, which I believe is the jurisdiction to which most people here are best accustomed.

It would be inaccurate to refer to the realities of at will vs contractual employment as jurisdictional, but we assure you, ambassador, they are mutually exclusice.

OOC: https://www.hrdirectapps.com/blog/at-will-vs-contract-employees-discipline-termination-rights/#:~:text=Employers%20can%20terminate%20at%2Dwill,employees%20from%20wrongful%20termination%20situations.

And more broadly: https://www.google.com/search?q=contractual+employment+vs+at+will&rlz=1CAMWDF_enUS735US735&oq=contract&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l2j46j0l3.1735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[The New Nordic Union]

'Not in the Nordic Union, and not in any jurisdiction that we know of.'

OOC: Not even in the RL USA, which I believe is the jurisdiction to which most people here are best accustomed.

It would be inaccurate to refer to the realities of at will vs contractual employment as jurisdictional, but we assure you, ambassador, they are mutually exclusice.

OOC: https://www.hrdirectapps.com/blog/at-will-vs-contract-employees-discipline-termination-rights/#:~:text=Employers%20can%20terminate%20at%2Dwill,employees%20from%20wrongful%20termination%20situations.

And more broadly: https://www.google.com/search?q=contractual+employment+vs+at+will&rlz=1CAMWDF_enUS735US735&oq=contract&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l2j46j0l3.1735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

'They are not. A contract is an agreement of two or more parties which governs their respective rights and duties in the relationship; in this case, the work one party is expected to perform and on the other hand, the compensation they will receive for this. Nothing more is needed for a contract, that this relationship can be termniated by any party at any given time does not change this fact.'

OOC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

https://www.legalnature.com/guides/empl ... employment ('Most employment contracts are at-will in nature...')

http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C4/24C4t317.htm (see II. [3], 'fundamentally contractual', with further precedents)