[DEFEATED] Repeal "Protected Working Leave"

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "The replacement effort is not led by our delegation but by the delegation of Tinhampton. Don't make accusations you can't prove, Ambassador, as our campaign telegrams actively point to "Employee Rights" as a replacement for this resolution."

OOC: Thank you for pointing that out, will take a look at TIn's plan.

IC: Ogenbond scrunches his eyebrow. "What? Gerald, what's he talking about? That didn't show up in my morning brief."

Gerald hunches over the representative's shoulder, tabs through the folder on the desk, and retrieves a copy of the replacement effort. "Sir, you have to read through the whole thing."

Maria vyn Nysen smiles politely, raising her eyebrows slightly. "I think you meant 'she', Ambassador."

As to the other points you made, the first Clause doesn't speak of the entire duration of childhood since several drafts. What we do refer to are cases wherein care for a physically or mentally ill patient becomes necessary, and as the delegation from Imperium Anglorum stated, what's necessary is implicitly reasonable. A patient who suffers from an illness that renders them incapable of seeing to their basic needs necessarily requires care. Which is what Clause 1 addresses regarding the use of "reasonable duration" in the target resolution. The necessity may even be to provide care for years on end, especially regarding an illness that becomes progressively worse.

Regarding what you stated on Clause 3, our delegation isn't saying that workers on time-limited contracts don't deserve paid leave. They do. However, that right needs to be determined clearly, precisely. It needs to have clear conditions and limitations. Because leaving an employer with workers on time-limited contracts on leave for the entire duration of their employment contract is not an efficient way to organise employment within a nation. We are not interested in seeing workers, employees on time-limited contracts included, without rights. We want those rights to be implemented without loopholes or ludicrous situations like we described in our argumentation. Yet the target resolution allows for such ludicrous situations to arise because of its wording.

Clause 4 isn't about nations making mistakes, it's about the disparity that is being allowed within the target resolution between small businesses and large corporations. There should be differentiation between the two and "Protected Working Leave" isn't doing that. It approaches the subject from a broad-strokes and one-size-fits-all approach that is too unwieldy and tool for a subject as delicate and intricate as employment law. Small businesses can't be treated the same way large corporations are, a regulation or law has to factor in the differences between them.

You wouldn't use a drill to put a nail in the wall, now would you, Ambassador? Yet GAR #527 is that drill, and paid leave as an aspect of employment law is that nail. We believe it should be either left to member nations to regulate on paid leave independently, or to have a detailed and precise resolution as its replacement."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: This proposal reached quorum, and is currently in queue for the vote. Many thanks to all the delegates who gave their approval, I appreciate it tremendously!

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Our delegation has taken note of a few murmurs regarding this proposal, namely that it is founded on right-wing ideals, or motivated by corporate interests.

I emphatically oppose both notions.

Our repeal is motivated by a single desire: to see 'paid leave' as an aspect of employment law be regulated with precision, clarity and objectivity. In the opinion of our delegation, employment law is a subject that should be left to the individual member states to legislate and regulate upon. This perspective is strongly being advocated by the delegation from Bananaistan, and we have found their arguments to be convincing and correct, which is why we have adopted a similar stance towards the subject of employment law, and in particular 'paid leave' as an aspect of it.

However, our delegation understands that there are many member nations that want to see a replacement, should "Protected Working Leave" indeed be repealed. As such, our delegation has pointed multiple times to the draft "Employee Rights" by the delegation from Tinhampton, as it approaches the subject of 'paid leave' in a much more detailed and precise manner, than GAR #527 does at the moment. Yes, our delegation would prefer that the subject was left to individual nations to regulate, yet if there is to be a replacement, let it be a precise and detailed one.

Our delegation firmly believes that workers have all the right to protections from exploitation by employers. Yet that protection has to be clearly defined, and not left to the subjective interpretation of member nations and employers. A subjective vacuum such as "reasonable" or "not too onerous" fails to grant adequate, reliable protection.

Employment law is like a delicate nail that needs the appropriate hammer to be successfully implemented into the wall. 'Paid leave' is such a nail, and GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" is currently a jackhammer that is being applied to that delicate, tiny nail. As such, I reiterate, our delegation is not motivated by rightist ideals, and never will be, nor is it driven by corporate interests. It is founded upon a will to find the right tool for paid leave as an aspect of employment law."

[Merni]

Clause 1. The examples given are not at all "reasonable" -- caring for a disabled or elderly person or child for many years and demanding years of paid leave without any work is not a "reasonable duration of paid leave" (as I interpret it, anyway)
Clause 2. Many GA resolutions use words like "reasonable". It is impossible to specify numbers exactly while taking into account the vast diversity of the NS multiverse. Instead, member nations and persons are left to take a reasonable interpretation. If that were a basis of repeal, many other GA resolutions would have to be repealed.
Clause 3. An employee who "file[s] for paid leave on the first day of their employment, and remain[s] on paid leave for the entire duration of their employment" is not asking for a "reasonable duration" of paid leave as required by the target resolution.
Clause 4. No reasonable nation would come to a conclusion that a small busines is equally capable of shouldering the costs of paid leave as a huge megacorporation. Even if "analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different", reasonable member states' determination of capability would be based on reality, not theory. Additionally (thanks, Scalizagasti), if requiring a business to shoulder the costs of paid leave would lead to "risk of bankruptcy" (as alleged by the repeal), then it would by definition be a "significant financial strain".

[Refuge Isle]

Clause 2. Many GA resolutions use words like "reasonable". It is impossible to specify numbers exactly while taking into account the vast diversity of the NS multiverse. Instead, member nations and persons are left to take a reasonable interpretation. If that were a basis of repeal, many other GA resolutions would have to be repealed.

I don't support this repeal, but this angle of argument against it is rather silly. Resolutions are often repealed for vague and unclear wording, including for the word "reasonable", in particular. Where a resolution requires nations to set limits of what they find to be reasonable, there can be a disconnect with the WA's expectations (or even author intent) and cause enough for repeal, depending on the circumstance.

[Merni]

Clause 2. Many GA resolutions use words like "reasonable". It is impossible to specify numbers exactly while taking into account the vast diversity of the NS multiverse. Instead, member nations and persons are left to take a reasonable interpretation. If that were a basis of repeal, many other GA resolutions would have to be repealed.

I don't support this repeal, but this angle of argument against it is rather silly. Resolutions are often repealed for vague and unclear wording, including for the word "reasonable", in particular. Where a resolution requires nations to set limits of what they find to be reasonable, there can be a disconnect with the WA's expectations (or even author intent) and cause enough for repeal, depending on the circumstance.

I agree that isn't a particularly strong argument (hence why I didn't include it in the challenge), but I wanted to point it out because I feel the use of the word "reasonable" is one of the simplest ways to mandate on something that may vary among the diverse species, cultures, etc., involved in the WA without getting into impractical micromanagement.

[Daarwyrth]

Clause 1. The examples given are not at all "reasonable" -- caring for a disabled or elderly person or child for many years and demanding years of paid leave without any work is not a "reasonable duration of paid leave" (as I interpret it, anyway)
Clause 2. Many GA resolutions use words like "reasonable". It is impossible to specify numbers exactly while taking into account the vast diversity of the NS multiverse. Instead, member nations and persons are left to take a reasonable interpretation. If that were a basis of repeal, many other GA resolutions would have to be repealed.
Clause 3. An employee who "file[s] for paid leave on the first day of their employment, and remain[s] on paid leave for the entire duration of their employment" is not asking for a "reasonable duration" of paid leave as required by the target resolution.
Clause 4. No reasonable nation would come to a conclusion that a small busines is equally capable of shouldering the costs of paid leave as a huge megacorporation. Even if "analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different", reasonable member states' determination of capability would be based on reality, not theory. Additionally (thanks, Scalizagasti), if requiring a business to shoulder the costs of paid leave would lead to "risk of bankruptcy" (as alleged by the repeal), then it would by definition be a "significant financial strain".

Clause 1: So you're saying taking care for someone who is incapable of seeing to their basic needs independently doesn't fall under "reasonable duration"? Imagine someone with Alzheimer's, with dementia, or with ALS. Those illnesses can render a person incapable of feeding themselves, of cleaning themselves etc. especially when their disease has progressed to an advanced point. Yet despite that, those individuals still can live for many years. How is it not reasonable to have to take care of a mother, father, a child or spouse who suffers from such an illness that prevents them from seeing to their basic needs independently? Where care for that patient is necessary? As Imperiun Anglorum said earlier in this draft thread, something that is necessary is implicitly reasonable.

Clause 2: Refuge Isle has already covered this argument, and I agree with what they said on this. In addition, I relied on feedback that I received earlier in this thread that stated the argument regarding "reasonable" was good. I trusted the experience of those posters in keeping the argument as is, and while I agree that a word like "reasonable" is a fair way to approach broad-strokes legislation in other cases, employment law is something that needs care and attention to detail. It is such an intricate subject that it can't be handled by a one-size-fits-all approach, because then you get multiple interpretations of the same word, which doesn't create stability, but undermines it instead. If every country fills in the wording "reasonable" or "not too onerous" then how can one employee have the certainty they'll have the same employment rights across the WA? GAR #527 creates the illusion of stability, while actually providing a pretty but empty shell.

Clause 3: Yet that's your perspective of what reasonable is. A worker on a time-limited contract who believes themselves to have legitimate reasons to remain on paid-leave for the entire duration views their situation to be entirely reasonable. Say their spouse or child or someone else they take care for had a terrible accident and needs constant care. Would it not be reasonable for them to file for paid-leave for the entire duration of their employment contract if it happened to happen at the same time? Under GAR #527, such cases can happen in other situations as well, because the wording is nebulous and vague in so many cases. This wouldn't become an issue if there was simply a clear and precise approach to the conditions.

Clause 4: Yet that is again a subjective interpretation of the word "reasonable". Do you see how that is a recurring theme? That everytime we speak of "reasonable" we fill it in with what we consider to be reasonable? It is based on a subjective perception of affairs which shouldn't be allowed to stand at the centre of employment law. And regarding the smaller businesses and larger corporations, it's not the big sweeping changes, but the smaller ones that keep on adding. Compare a corporation like EA to the small family grocery store on the corner of the road. If an employee files for paid leave with the former, there is not significant financial strain. Yet compare that now to 1 worker who goes on paid leave at that corner store, where there may be only a handful of employees working there. A single employer reasonably shouldn't be too much of a financial strain, yet the impact on the corner store will be much greater than on EA. And imagine in addition there are other factors that contribute to that store having a hard time, then the single employee going on paid leave might not seem to onerous at all, while causing problems on the inside through a cascade of smaller issues. Yet all of that could be avoided if the subject was handled with a differentiation in mind, where larger corporations are subjected to stricter conditions, and smaller corporations still to strict ones as well, but tailored to the size and scope at which they function. That is very easily doable in a resolution such as this, but apparently there was no will for that in this case (for whatever reason).

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote for this repeal.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1546665

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Obraztsova: since we agree with the most of the things being said about in this repeal, especially concerning the amount of loopholes in the original resolution and some very vague wording that can be used to exploit the system, my superiors had instructed me to vote for this repeal only and only in the case that it’ll be soon replaced by a better-written resolution on paid worker leave. The reason for that is that the longer the WA keeps such things unregulated the more some member states will abuse the absence of international law on the matter. We also pledge full support for the future resolution, replacing GA#547.

As of now I shall abstain from voting before the Daarwyth’s delegation shall confirm that a replacement for GA#547 is in the works.

[Tinhampton]

Obraztsova: [...] I shall abstain from voting before the Daarwyth’s delegation shall confirm that a replacement for GA#547 is in the works.

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I am not Maria vyn Nysen, but I have prepared a replacement for the target resolution that may soon be repealed.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Obraztsova: [...] I shall abstain from voting before the Daarwyth’s delegation shall confirm that a replacement for GA#547 is in the works.

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I am not Maria vyn Nysen, but I have prepared a replacement for the target resolution that may soon be repealed.

Obraztsova: Well, than, you have our vote and full support, comrade Smith! Lakan state- and workers-owned industries will thank you for such a glorious decision! I suppose, some worker unions might brag a bit, but there’s nothing that our riot suppression arm...- I mean our riot police can’t deal with!

[Daarwyrth]

As of now I shall abstain from voting before the Daarwyth’s delegation shall confirm that a replacement for GA#547 is in the works.

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: I am not Maria vyn Nysen, but I have prepared a replacement for the target resolution that may soon be repealed.

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "As has been noted by my colleague, Delegate-Ambassador Smith, his delegation has produced the proposal draft called "Employee Rights", in which 'paid leave' is regulated upon among others. While we have stated our opinion previously on the fact that we believe this aspect of employment law should be left to individual member nations to legislate upon, our delegation is comfortable enough with the resolution draft produced by the Tinhamptonian delegation to refer to it as our recommendation for the replacement of GAR #527. We leave it to the member nations of the WA to decide whether they prefer a replacement, or for the subject to be left to individual nations to legislate upon."

[Marxist Germany]

"Germany supports repealing this proposal and not replacing it at all; the World Assembly should not interfere with the labour rights of member-states."

[Daarwyrth]

"Germany supports repealing this proposal and not replacing it at all; the World Assembly should not interfere with the labour rights of member-states."

Vyn Nysen: "Our delegation also believes that the subject of labour law should be left to individual nations to legislate upon. Yet we do understand that there are also nations who'd want the opposite, which is why our delegation sees "Employee Rights" as the potential replacement for GAR #527. If 'paid leave' is to be regulated by WA law, let it be clear and precise, and not rely on subjective ambiguities such as "reasonable" or "not too onerous".

Nonetheless, our delegation is grateful for your support of this repeal proposal."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I also wanted to take this opportunity to address the critique of the RNT that has been put forward.

In Clause 2 GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" says the following:

"Declares that member nations must provide workers who request such with a reasonable duration of paid leave to the extent necessary to adequately service any of the following conditions:"

Note the wording "reasonable duration... to the extent necessary to adequately service any of the following conditions".
This means that for the reasonable duration to be reasonable, there has to be an element of necessity. Now, please take note of the following Clause 2.b:

"to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care"

This part of the resolution doesn't say "find care for" or "ensure that care is provided to", no, it specifically says "care for". As such, if a patient has an illness that requires them to be cared for in order to simply survive, in other words be fed, be hydrated, be given medication etc., because they can't see to their needs independently, it would be absolutely unreasonable to leave such a patient without care. As such, no reasonable nation would enforce a situation that would leave someone who cannot take care of their basic needs without care from a caretaker.

And the law does as the law says. The resolution in question specifically states: "to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care". The resolution speaks of a situation where the worker takes care of a patient, not "ensures care is provided for" or "organises care for", no. The text of the law clearly states "workers who request such with a reasonable duration of paid leave... to care for a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent should they require such care".

If the resolution wanted to specify a different situation, the text of the law should have used a different, clearer wording.

[Pekares]

"Protected Working Leave" is beyond WA (international) law, and should therefore be repealed.

[Daarwyrth]

"Protected Working Leave" is beyond WA (international) law, and should therefore be repealed.

Vyn Nysen: "I would argue that the World Assembly should also pass legislation in furthering the rights and protections of citizens, protections and rights for workers included. Yet the execution of "Protected Working Leave" is detrimental to the safety and stability it intends to establish, and thus should indeed be repealed.

Yet from what our delegation has seen, flawed interpretations of our repeal proposal have started circling around centres of WA Influence that have, unfortunately, swayed those centres 'against' this proposal. Our delegation is countering those flawed interpretations, yet they seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Our impression is that many do not look beyond the title "Repeal Protected Working Leave", and immediately believe it must be the work of evil corporate forces. I can only hope our assumption is also flawed, and based on feelings of disappointment, not reality."

[Wallenburg]

"Protected Working Leave" is beyond WA (international) law, and should therefore be repealed.

"Protected Working Leave" is international law, not beyond or below it. I do not understand at all what you mean.

[Pekares]

"Protected Working Leave" is beyond WA (international) law, and should therefore be repealed.

"Protected Working Leave" is international law, not beyond or below it. I do not understand at all what you mean.

This means I view the resolution "Protected Working Leave" as regulating something WA law should not regulate, and rather it is something each individual nation is to regualte themselves. This is what I mean by "beyond international law".

[Wallenburg]

"Protected Working Leave" is international law, not beyond or below it. I do not understand at all what you mean.

This means I view the resolution "Protected Working Leave" as regulating something WA law should not regulate, and rather it is something each individual nation is to regualte themselves. This is what I mean by "beyond international law".

You are within your rights to vote to repeal this on such a basis, but such an argument is rather unconvincing. It is the "national sovereignty" argument rephrased in less accurate language. The World Assembly exists to encroach on member states' authority and regulate where some nations might wish it not to. This is the sole purpose of international law, unless you include "making ambassadors feel good about themselves" as another purpose.

[Daarwyrth]

This means I view the resolution "Protected Working Leave" as regulating something WA law should not regulate, and rather it is something each individual nation is to regualte themselves. This is what I mean by "beyond international law".

You are within your rights to vote to repeal this on such a basis, but such an argument is rather unconvincing. It is the "national sovereignty" argument rephrased in less accurate language. The World Assembly exists to encroach on member states' authority and regulate where some nations might wish it not to. This is the sole purpose of international law, unless you include "making ambassadors feel good about themselves" as another purpose.

"The World Assembly should absolutely regulate on citizen rights, those of workers included. Yet if it does so, it should do so with precision and clarity."

[Pekares]

This means I view the resolution "Protected Working Leave" as regulating something WA law should not regulate, and rather it is something each individual nation is to regualte themselves. This is what I mean by "beyond international law".

You are within your rights to vote to repeal this on such a basis, but such an argument is rather unconvincing. It is the "national sovereignty" argument rephrased in less accurate language. The World Assembly exists to encroach on member states' authority and regulate where some nations might wish it not to. This is the sole purpose of international law, unless you include "making ambassadors feel good about themselves" as another purpose.

I can agree that is the reason international exists in the form of the WA.
And, in my view people should locally decide their own laws, and not be regulated by people elsewhere. This is why I support this repeal. Because I draw the line of how much the WA should "encroach" somewhat close to establishing the fundamental human right and freedoms, as the things international law should regulate. This "line" is different from nation to nation here.
I viewed it as the right thing to do, to voice my opinion here, and provide people with a reason to vote yes. Then it is up to people to decide how to vote in the end.

[Illu-chi]

I haven't voted on it yet and I am still trying to make up my mind, but the nation of daarwyth has a average income tax of 96% and they are worried about small businesses .

[Daarwyrth]

I haven't voted on it yet and I am still trying to make up my mind, but the nation of daarwyth has a average income tax of 96% and they are worried about small businesses .

OOC: I don't use the stats for the canon of Daarwyrth, so that is a rather irrelevant point.

[Illu-chi]

I haven't voted on it yet and I am still trying to make up my mind, but the nation of daarwyth has a average income tax of 96% and they are worried about small businesses .

OOC: I don't use the stats for the canon of Daarwyrth, so that is a rather irrelevant point

Ok