NationStates

Hulldom wrote:Defines “guest worker” as an employee of a company or a government who works in a country other than that of their original nationality and does so as the result of a government or employer-based visa or other form of sponsorship.

OOC: Isn't this EVERYONE who lives and works in a nation they weren't born in? Or only working-visa people? What is "other form of sponsorship" in the context?

If it is everyone, then maybe leave out the bits about visas and sponsorships?

Araraukar wrote:

Hulldom wrote:Defines “guest worker” as an employee of a company or a government who works in a country other than that of their original nationality and does so as the result of a government or employer-based visa or other form of sponsorship.

OOC: Isn't this EVERYONE who lives and works in a nation they weren't born in? Or only working-visa people? What is "other form of sponsorship" in the context?

If it is everyone, then maybe leave out the bits about visas and sponsorships?

Fixed on both accounts.

Removed “or other forms of sponsorship” and added “temporarily” after “who”

Hulldom wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Isn't this EVERYONE who lives and works in a nation they weren't born in? Or only working-visa people? What is "other form of sponsorship" in the context?

If it is everyone, then maybe leave out the bits about visas and sponsorships?

Fixed on both accounts.

Removed “or other forms of sponsorship” and added “temporarily” after “who”

OOC: The question still remains; is it meant to be everyone who works in a nation they weren't born in, or only working-visa people? If you don't mean the latter, then maybe make it "right to work" or something like that, as not all nations use visas (they are a very specific thing). If you do mean the latter, then be aware this only applies to nations that actually use a system of visas.

Still same definition, why specifically "employee of a company or a government"? Why wouldn't all the things you propose apply to someone employed by a private person (think personal care nurse for example) or the state (which is not same as government) or a city or any other administrative unit or an NGO? If it's meant to mean everyone working temporarily in another nation, then why not leave it at "-an employee who temporarily works-"?

Also, what is "temporarily" here? Does it mean pre-agreed length of time (like, say, 6 months) they have the work contract for? What if the employer keeps extending that indefinitely? Can the nation at some point say "c'mon, they're living and working here permanently, stop trying to fool our bureaucracy"? Or is there a time limit even on preagreed stuff when someone's no longer a guest worker but an inhabitant? Can a nation just claim that anyone who works within their border and has a place to stay they don't pay for by the day (someone living in a hotel room would be guest worker, but someone renting a flat on a weekly or monthly basis would be an inhabitant), is an inhabitant instead of a guest worker? In RL Finland I think the cut-off is at one year; if you live (and work) here for that long, then you're no longer counted as a temporary worker. (It's relevant because, for an example, car taxes being different size in Estonia and Finland, and if you're a temporary worker you can use a car registered in Estonia (lower tax) but if you're not, you need to register it in Finland (higher tax).)

Re: Ara's above point, the definition I've used is a commonly accepted, and to my knowledge not plagiarized, definition. I understand it may be broad, but that's because the category itself is pretty broad.

On another note: Hits the proposal, rattling it.

Dame Allania Trueblood walks in just in time to see Elizabeth Van Roy slapping around a piece of paper. The Trellanian delegate stares at the Hulldom delegate as though Van Roy is a madwoman for a few moments before walking over. The entire time Dame Allania is in the room, she makes it a point to keep a table or other piece of furniture between her and Van Roy, with frequent glances to the Hulldom delegate as though watching for any other odd acts or attacks.

After reading the resolution, which takes twice as long as normal due to the not-even-remotely-hidden surveillance of Van Roy, Dame Allania asks, "Just to make certain, this list of rights only includes the right to vote if it is for elections in the guest worker's home nation, correct? I want to make certain I am reading it properly."

Trellania wrote:Dame Allania Trueblood walks in just in time to see Elizabeth Van Roy slapping around a piece of paper. The Trellanian delegate stares at the Hulldom delegate as though Van Roy is a madwoman for a few moments before walking over. The entire time Dame Allania is in the room, she makes it a point to keep a table or other piece of furniture between her and Van Roy, with frequent glances to the Hulldom delegate as though watching for any other odd acts or attacks.

After reading the resolution, which takes twice as long as normal due to the not-even-remotely-hidden surveillance of Van Roy, Dame Allania asks, "Just to make certain, this list of rights only includes the right to vote if it is for elections in the guest worker's home nation, correct? I want to make certain I am reading it properly."

"This proposal touches on...nothing of the sort, Ma'am."

OOC: the hitting the proposal was a clever attempt at not saying "bump".

Dame Allania nods, though she keeps a wary eye on Ambassador Van Roy. "In that case, you have Trellania's support."

OOC: I figured, but it wasn't marked as such and it amused me too much not to include.

Hulldom wrote:Re: Ara's above point, the definition I've used is a commonly accepted, and to my knowledge not plagiarized, definition. I understand it may be broad, but that's because the category itself is pretty broad.

OOC: All AoE resolutions need minimum of Significant strength effect. Your definition creates so narrow scope that I don't know if it's applicable, especially as things like "temporarily" are left entirely up to nations to decide.

If you left out "and does so as the result of a government or employer-based visa" from the definition, it would widen the scope enough. And wouldn't impact the point you're doing the proposal, as far as I can see. Clause 5 and 6 mentions of visa could mention work contract instead.

Clause 4 by the way could refer to basic standards of living or something like that. Mentioning food sounds odd.

Araraukar wrote:

Hulldom wrote:Re: Ara's above point, the definition I've used is a commonly accepted, and to my knowledge not plagiarized, definition. I understand it may be broad, but that's because the category itself is pretty broad.

OOC: All AoE resolutions need minimum of Significant strength effect. Your definition creates so narrow scope that I don't know if it's applicable, especially as things like "temporarily" are left entirely up to nations to decide.

If you left out "and does so as the result of a government or employer-based visa" from the definition, it would widen the scope enough. And wouldn't impact the point you're doing the proposal, as far as I can see. Clause 5 and 6 mentions of visa could mention work contract instead.

Clause 4 by the way could refer to basic standards of living or something like that. Mentioning food sounds odd.

I can see the wisdom in them, so all of these are done.

Van Rooy pushes a bundle of papers down a stairwell towards some gathered Ambassadors. It contains copies of the latest draft of this proposal.

Or, in other words, bump.

Edit: clause 3 has been reworded for clarity on the advice of Jedinsto. Some wording in clause 1 has been substituted for the same on the advice of the same. Both of these were TNP internal discussions. Also, targeting end of the week with this since no major issues seem to be outstanding, but someone yell at me if that won’t work.

OOC: Clause 6.a. still mentions visas (twice) and sponsorships.

Also, the definition could still be opened up a bit more as "Defines “guest worker” as an employee who temporarily works..." That way it would also apply to, say, migrant workers working for a farmer to help with harvesting.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Clause 6.a. still mentions visas (twice) and sponsorships.

Also, the definition could still be opened up a bit more as "Defines “guest worker” as an employee who temporarily works..." That way it would also apply to, say, migrant workers working for a farmer to help with harvesting.

Definition has been updated as I agree the definition could/should be broader. As for 6(a), I can only go but so far. There has to be a legal reason, or legal document, which allows them to be there.

Hulldom wrote:There has to be a legal reason, or legal document, which allows them to be there.

OOC: Like work contract?

Araraukar wrote:

Hulldom wrote:There has to be a legal reason, or legal document, which allows them to be there.

OOC: Like work contract?

Sure, but that contract is not the legal document which allowed you to travel from A to B. It’s the reason you’re going from A to B, but the work document alone is not sufficient to move across the border.

Not so much a bump as "barring anything major, I intend to submit this Saturday".

Hulldom wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Like work contract?

Sure, but that contract is not the legal document which allowed you to travel from A to B. It’s the reason you’re going from A to B, but the work document alone is not sufficient to move across the border.

OOC: Yeah, but you're creating internal contradiction or at least internal confusion when you start out of nowhere talking about visas in clause 6. Because a visa is a very specific kind of document, you might instead go for "working permit" or something more general like that, but even then you might want to put it in the definition, like "an employee who has a working permit to temporarily work in a nation other than the nation in which that person is a citizen" (which would also streamline "country" and "nation" into just "nation", as the usages of the two words are a bit different and you should pick one and stick to it, and also removing an unnecessary "that of"). Then you could change any mentions to visas to instead be "working permit".

Also, what are "immigration enforcement laws"? (Clause 6 main clause.)

And what "documentation" is specifically meant in clause 7? Presumably you're not trying to force nations to give proof of citizenship to just anyone who demands such a document.

Araraukar wrote:

Hulldom wrote:Sure, but that contract is not the legal document which allowed you to travel from A to B. It’s the reason you’re going from A to B, but the work document alone is not sufficient to move across the border.

OOC: Yeah, but you're creating internal contradiction or at least internal confusion when you start out of nowhere talking about visas in clause 6. Because a visa is a very specific kind of document, you might instead go for "working permit" or something more general like that, but even then you might want to put it in the definition, like "an employee who has a working permit to temporarily work in a nation other than the nation in which that person is a citizen" (which would also streamline "country" and "nation" into just "nation", as the usages of the two words are a bit different and you should pick one and stick to it, and also removing an unnecessary "that of"). Then you could change any mentions to visas to instead be "working permit".

Also, what are "immigration enforcement laws"? (Clause 6 main clause.)

And what "documentation" is specifically meant in clause 7? Presumably you're not trying to force nations to give proof of citizenship to just anyone who demands such a document.

Alright, should be fixed now. I think the "immigration enforcement laws" were me trying to be cute or verbose with the wording. Either way, now that you explained it, I can see your point and have fixed it.

Not bumping this, but making this easier to find when it goes to vote on Sunday.

Given that Sen. Black is still unable to attend the WA, Grand Duke Isaacs stands once more to speak.

"Given my nation's long support of civil rights, it may come as a surprise that Meretica will not be supportive of this proposal. We will vote no on the basis that nations ought to have autonomy on whether or not local or foreign workers receive full or partial payment compared to indigenous workers. Meretica has recently adopted protectionist policies and began immigration reforms that are expected to discourage immigration. We are trying to get immigrants to go to other countries so that there are more jobs for Mereticans. The WA should not be able to dictate Meretican immigration policy."

Meretica wrote:Given that Sen. Black is still unable to attend the WA, Grand Duke Isaacs stands once more to speak.

"Given my nation's long support of civil rights, it may come as a surprise that Meretica will not be supportive of this proposal. We will vote no on the basis that nations ought to have autonomy on whether or not local or foreign workers receive full or partial payment compared to indigenous workers. Meretica has recently adopted protectionist policies and began immigration reforms that are expected to discourage immigration. We are trying to get immigrants to go to other countries so that there are more jobs for Mereticans. The WA should not be able to dictate Meretican immigration policy."

“We would direct your delegation to revisit clause 8 of this proposal.”

I'm not giving backpackers accommodation and full pay. If you want to work in my nation, you can find your own place to live and you can work towards a full payment like everyone else.

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Despite the objection of some in our nation... our delegation will be voting 'for' on this proposal. We believe this will promote international cohesion, and create fairer opportunities for prosperity for all."

"Germany has always held the position that it is up to employees to negotiate their contracts with their employers, and not the business of the government to dictate what pay they receive, or whether they are treated equally relative to other employees or not; therefore, Germany will be voting against this proposal."

OOC: Does the combination of clauses '1' & '3' mean that once somebody has become a guest worker in one member nation they must be considered as eligible to seek hiring in every other member nation as those other nations' own nationals?

Also, clause '1'' needs to specify that this applies only when the initial employment is itself legally recognised: 'workers' such as clandestinely imported "muscle" for organised crime groups [for example], or members of smuggling crews, should not have the same protected residence rights [for example] as personnel brought in by legitimate businesses... In fact, as the proposal is currently written, there actually might be a technical contradiction of GA Res.#20 'Suppress International Piracy' involved in this respect...

Hulldom wrote:

Meretica wrote:Given that Sen. Black is still unable to attend the WA, Grand Duke Isaacs stands once more to speak.

"Given my nation's long support of civil rights, it may come as a surprise that Meretica will not be supportive of this proposal. We will vote no on the basis that nations ought to have autonomy on whether or not local or foreign workers receive full or partial payment compared to indigenous workers. Meretica has recently adopted protectionist policies and began immigration reforms that are expected to discourage immigration. We are trying to get immigrants to go to other countries so that there are more jobs for Mereticans. The WA should not be able to dictate Meretican immigration policy."

“We would direct your delegation to revisit clause 8 of this proposal.”

"Even with clause 8, the proposal foes too far to put migrants above domestic workers. Meretica will not support this and will support repeal if passed."