Page 1 of 3

[DEFEATED] Paid Leave Act

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:23 pm
by Minskiev
Edit: proposal https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga

Edit 2: arguments here!

Hey. This is a replacement for GA#527. My repeal is here. Feedback is highly appreciated.

Notable changes:
- did away with "reasonable," "serious," "unnecessarily onerous," etc.
- added a paid leave minimum for employers to decide how long to grant paid leave for above it
- hopefully, sorta fixed the "without significant financial strain" problem?
- fixed the same or comparable job contradiction + vagueness
- IMO improved worker definition maybe possibly?
reference: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
The World Assembly,

Accepting that economic growth follows the economic security of workers,

Hoping to both achieve economic security as well as a healthy, growing populace,

Understanding that one such way to achieve these ideals is through paid leave and securing jobs for workers for them to care for themselves and their loved ones, however careful not to excessively interfere with employers' operations,

Hereby:

  1. Defines for this resolution:
    1. economic security as having a stable income or resources to sufficiently support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future;
    2. a worker as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for or services another party as a part of said contract; and
    3. paid leave as time which an employer must not require a worker to work for or service another party per their employment contract, during which the worker receives from their employer:
      1. compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security;
      2. all non-income benefits that the worker would normally receive that could take away economic security from a worker without it; and
      3. the right to the same job or a job with a similar salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and work location, once the worker returns from paid leave, should the employer be able to provide it without bankrupting themselves.
  2. Mandates that member states provide workers requesting paid leave a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions:
    1. the duration of the worker's illness or injury to recover if the illness or injury directly compromises the worker's or their co-workers' ability to work, unless it is an irreversible illness or injury, in which case the minimum would be four weeks;
    2. the duration of the worker's spouse's, child's, parent's, grandparent's, or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual if the illness or injury directly compromises their ability to function, unless it is an irreversible illness or injury, in which case the minimum would be six weeks, should the affected individual require such care from the worker;
    3. two weeks per year for general purposes; and
    4. twelve weeks to care for the worker's new child, whether from childbirth, adoption, or placement of the new child in foster care, should that child require such care from the worker.
  3. Forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker, reducing the benefits or compensation of a worker, or disciplining a worker with the reason being the worker filed for paid leave, and forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,
  4. Declares that workers must alert their employers as soon as they are aware of any foreseeable events or conditions that may induce the worker to file for paid leave in the future,
  5. Restates and clarifies that:
    1. member states and employers may not impose conditions for granting paid leave;
    2. the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum paid leave duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;
    3. only the filing worker is granted paid leave;
    4. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker if it is within the twelve weeks;
    5. member states pay the financial compensation outlined in 1ci unless it is general-purposes paid leave, in which case the filing worker's employer pays, however, employers of workers filing for general-purposes paid leave may force the workers' member states to provide the financial compensation throughout the paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
    6. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:27 pm
by Minskiev
idk where tf it is

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:09 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Let's avoid this whole business about "servicing another party" and leave it in the gutter.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:21 pm
by Minskiev
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Let's avoid this whole business about "servicing another party" and leave it in the gutter.


Elaboration would be helpful.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2021 8:53 pm
by Outer Sparta
Minskiev wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Let's avoid this whole business about "servicing another party" and leave it in the gutter.


Elaboration would be helpful.

I think what IA is saying is that you should get rid of the "servicing another party" part in your draft. But do try to understand other people giving you feedback.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:43 am
by Bananaistan
"The definition of worker is far too expansive. You get a plumber in to fix your plumbing, they're now your employee. Is it a contract of service or contract for services?

... and during which the worker receives compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents from the member state's government, all employment benefits that the employer would provide if the worker were not on paid leave from the employer ...

"An employee getting holiday pay from their employer and from the state is excessive.

... four weeks ... six weeks ... twelve weeks

"We all know reasonable is bad but so are specific time limits. But if you must at least limit it to the duration of the illness. Everyone getting six weeks off because their crotch goblin has a cold is a sure fire way to economic disaster.

bar extra working hours with extra proportional or more pay

"What exactly does this mean?

"We also have the unsolved problem of balancing discrimination against employees of small business vs the state subsidising businesses.

"Also no mention of holidays. The whole thing is an assault on single people yet again."

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:53 pm
by Minskiev
Outer Sparta wrote:
Minskiev wrote:
Elaboration would be helpful.

I think what IA is saying is that you should get rid of the "servicing another party" part in your draft. But do try to understand other people giving you feedback.


I mean why. I have no problem with taking feedback.

Bananaistan wrote:"The definition of worker is far too expansive. You get a plumber in to fix your plumbing, they're now your employee. Is it a contract of service or contract for services?

Hmm...fair. Yeah, I suppose independent contractors wouldn't be employees.
... and during which the worker receives compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents from the member state's government, all employment benefits that the employer would provide if the worker were not on paid leave from the employer ...

"An employee getting holiday pay from their employer and from the state is excessive."

I wouldn't consider benefits holiday pay..? Oh. I suppose you could interpret it that way, yes. I'll fix that.
... four weeks ... six weeks ... twelve weeks

"We all know reasonable is bad but so are specific time limits. But if you must at least limit it to the duration of the illness. Everyone getting six weeks off because their crotch goblin has a cold is a sure fire way to economic disaster.

Depends on the illness, but sure. For example, taking care of your dad's mental illness would be far too long, but some time is good.
bar extra working hours with extra proportional or more pay

"What exactly does this mean?'

I couldn't really think of any paid leave conditions besides extra working hours that weren't totally egregious, and so that'd be the condition. I also clarified that the pay would be equal or greater to the pay of a normal shift.
"We also have the unsolved problem of balancing discrimination against employees of small business vs the state subsidising businesses.

Meaning...the state should subsidize small businesses so that they could shift the burden onto them? Sorry, my brain isn't working too well right now...too tired :p
"Also no mention of holidays. The whole thing is an assault on single people yet again."

That...slipped my mind. I was only considering family and medical leave. Oops, haha.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 1:56 pm
by Apatosaurus
Bananaistan wrote:
... four weeks ... six weeks ... twelve weeks

"We all know reasonable is bad but so are specific time limits. But if you must at least limit it to the duration of the illness. Everyone getting six weeks off because their crotch goblin has a cold is a sure fire way to economic disaster.

"The Apatosaurusian Delegation would like to second Bananaistan's feedback."

PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:00 am
by Minskiev
Bump, I guess.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:53 am
by Minskiev
Alright, I'll submit the repeal tomorrow evening if there's no further feedback.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 10:15 am
by Outer Sparta
Minskiev wrote:Alright, I'll submit the repeal tomorrow evening if there's no further feedback.

Maybe wait for more feedback? You haven't actually gotten a lot.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 10:21 am
by Minskiev
Outer Sparta wrote:
Minskiev wrote:Alright, I'll submit the repeal tomorrow evening if there's no further feedback.

Maybe wait for more feedback? You haven't actually gotten a lot.


I'm trying to get feedback. Do you have any?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:17 pm
by Outer Sparta
Minskiev wrote:
Outer Sparta wrote:Maybe wait for more feedback? You haven't actually gotten a lot.


I'm trying to get feedback. Do you have any?

I'm not a GA expert so no. Wait till any of the secretariats give you any follow-up feedback to see if you've addressed their concerns or if they have new ones.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:20 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
I would wait for more feedback from Banana and possibly Sep, both of whom would know more about employment law. Don't rush things: things rushed are usually easily repealed.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:46 pm
by Minskiev
Bump :v

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:15 pm
by Bananaistan
OOC: I'd lose the [NEAR SUBMISSION] tag in the thread title. This can't be near submission when the repeal hasn't even been submitted yet.

For reasons that will become clear, I do not believe that the topic is suitable for international law and I'd be happy to see no replacement.

Section 1b might attract criticism solely for its length. The outright requirement that the government pay for all leave is an unfair subsidisation of business. At a minimum, employers should be required to pay holiday pay because annual leave is universal to all employees unlike any other form of leave.

Compensation for these other forms of leave. Yours and other mileage may vary but it seems reasonable to me that, as is the practice in Ireland, a base rate of compensation is paid by the state out of social insurance and the employer is free to top that up if they can. I'd lean towards member states should probably at least retain the right to require that successful companies are not subsidised but then a fair argument against that is that tis would mean unsuccessful businesses are subsidised.

The right to "all employment benefits" is overkill. I don't see why an employee on leave should automatically retain the right to eat the free food in the canteen for example.

"Should they be able to provide it" is as much a problem as "should their employer reasonably be able to provide such" in GAR#527. But even so, unless the company has gone bankrupt, if you're off for a day, you'd expect to return to the exact same job.

I'm no more a fan of specific time limits than I am of the word reasonable. Which doesn't exactly make me the best person to advise on section two but I can categorically state that two weeks annual leave per year is miserable. But OTOH a nation might have a lot of bank holidays.

I still don't know what 5a means.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:10 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: [snip]

I'm no more a fan of specific time limits than I am of the word reasonable. Which doesn't exactly make me the best person to advise on section two but I can categorically state that two weeks annual leave per year is miserable. But OTOH a nation might have a lot of bank holidays.


This is definitely an area where no real IRL consensus exists. The US has 0 mandatory paid days at the national level (whether "bank holidays", annual leave, or sick leave, personal anecdote: I have a single bank of time that serves as both sick leave and annual leave but have relatively generous public holidays with closer to 20 days provided) vs. China that offers 5 days of annual leave (until you hit 10 years of employment) and 11 days of public holidays (though you often end up working a 6 or 7 days week immediately before or after), and then places like Korea or Japan where the number of days granted in law is irrelevant because you won't be taking any of them anyway if you want to be employed.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:04 pm
by Minskiev
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I'd lose the [NEAR SUBMISSION] tag in the thread title. This can't be near submission when the repeal hasn't even been submitted yet.

For reasons that will become clear, I do not believe that the topic is suitable for international law and I'd be happy to see no replacement.

Section 1b might attract criticism solely for its length. The outright requirement that the government pay for all leave is an unfair subsidisation of business. At a minimum, employers should be required to pay holiday pay because annual leave is universal to all employees unlike any other form of leave.

Compensation for these other forms of leave. Yours and other mileage may vary but it seems reasonable to me that, as is the practice in Ireland, a base rate of compensation is paid by the state out of social insurance and the employer is free to top that up if they can. I'd lean towards member states should probably at least retain the right to require that successful companies are not subsidised but then a fair argument against that is that tis would mean unsuccessful businesses are subsidised.

The right to "all employment benefits" is overkill. I don't see why an employee on leave should automatically retain the right to eat the free food in the canteen for example.

"Should they be able to provide it" is as much a problem as "should their employer reasonably be able to provide such" in GAR#527. But even so, unless the company has gone bankrupt, if you're off for a day, you'd expect to return to the exact same job.

I'm no more a fan of specific time limits than I am of the word reasonable. Which doesn't exactly make me the best person to advise on section two but I can categorically state that two weeks annual leave per year is miserable. But OTOH a nation might have a lot of bank holidays.

I still don't know what 5a means.


At least partially fixed these, I think.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:36 pm
by Apatosaurus
Minskiev wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I'd lose the [NEAR SUBMISSION] tag in the thread title. This can't be near submission when the repeal hasn't even been submitted yet.

For reasons that will become clear, I do not believe that the topic is suitable for international law and I'd be happy to see no replacement.

Section 1b might attract criticism solely for its length. The outright requirement that the government pay for all leave is an unfair subsidisation of business. At a minimum, employers should be required to pay holiday pay because annual leave is universal to all employees unlike any other form of leave.

Compensation for these other forms of leave. Yours and other mileage may vary but it seems reasonable to me that, as is the practice in Ireland, a base rate of compensation is paid by the state out of social insurance and the employer is free to top that up if they can. I'd lean towards member states should probably at least retain the right to require that successful companies are not subsidised but then a fair argument against that is that tis would mean unsuccessful businesses are subsidised.

The right to "all employment benefits" is overkill. I don't see why an employee on leave should automatically retain the right to eat the free food in the canteen for example.

"Should they be able to provide it" is as much a problem as "should their employer reasonably be able to provide such" in GAR#527. But even so, unless the company has gone bankrupt, if you're off for a day, you'd expect to return to the exact same job.

I'm no more a fan of specific time limits than I am of the word reasonable. Which doesn't exactly make me the best person to advise on section two but I can categorically state that two weeks annual leave per year is miserable. But OTOH a nation might have a lot of bank holidays.

I still don't know what 5a means.


At least partially fixed these, I think.

You should still get rid of the specific time limits. Keeping them is a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't necessarily always work.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:08 pm
by Minskiev
Apatosaurus wrote:
Minskiev wrote:
At least partially fixed these, I think.

You should still get rid of the specific time limits. Keeping them is a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't necessarily always work.


It's not a time limit, it's a time minimum.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:17 pm
by Apatosaurus
Minskiev wrote:
Apatosaurus wrote:You should still get rid of the specific time limits. Keeping them is a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't necessarily always work.


It's not a time limit, it's a time minimum.

Mea culpa, but specific numbers in this situation are micromanagement and won't necessarily work in all situations.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:28 pm
by Minskiev
Now at near submission since I submitted the repeal.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:41 pm
by Apatosaurus
"The Apatosaurusian Delegation will likely be supporting this resolution if the repeal passes, especially as the micromanaging specific times have been removed."

Minskiev wrote:two weeks plus one day for each year the worker has worked under their employer per year for general purposes

OOC: Might as well change "two weeks plus one day" to "fifteen days". However, I do think 15 days is too short? Maybe something like a month instead.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:49 pm
by Minskiev
Apatosaurus wrote:"The Apatosaurusian Delegation will likely be supporting this resolution if the repeal passes, especially as the micromanaging specific times have been removed."

Minskiev wrote:two weeks plus one day for each year the worker has worked under their employer per year for general purposes

OOC: Might as well change "two weeks plus one day" to "fifteen days". However, I do think 15 days is too short? Maybe something like a month instead.


1. If an employee has worked there for zero years, they'd get zero additional days, and thus 14.

2. A newly-hired worker getting a month of paid vacation anytime? Really? If they were working for 4 months, they could be on paid vacation for a quarter of that. No thanks.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:56 pm
by Apatosaurus
Minskiev wrote:
Apatosaurus wrote:"The Apatosaurusian Delegation will likely be supporting this resolution if the repeal passes, especially as the micromanaging specific times have been removed."


OOC: Might as well change "two weeks plus one day" to "fifteen days". However, I do think 15 days is too short? Maybe something like a month instead.


1. If an employee has worked there for zero years, they'd get zero additional days, and thus 14.

OOC: Oh okay I misread :p

[quote="Minskiev";p="39078666"2. A newly-hired worker getting a month of paid vacation anytime? Really? If they were working for 4 months, they could be on paid vacation for a quarter of that. No thanks.[/quote]
It's per year?