[PASSED] RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYED

[Misthas]

Why tf y'all voting against?

It's way too far-reaching for a General Assembly resolution. This should be a jurisdictional matter.

[Kenmoria]

Why tf y'all voting against?

It's way too far-reaching for a General Assembly resolution. This should be a jurisdictional matter.

(OOC: There’s no particular issue with employment rights being covered by the General Assembly, but there are problems with a few clauses here, which is disappointing given how well-crafted the rest of the proposal is.)

[Ave Gloriana]

While this may be well intended, these regulations may not do well in developing nations. Such nations may not have the productivity standards to meet the requirements set forth.

We therefore vote against.

[Heavens Reach]

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)

We were both wrong, ambassador. My contention that at-will employment and contractual employment are mutually exclusive was incorrect. However, the presumption of work being contractual by implication is far from established.

OOC: As seen in this more formal source.

[Ankuran]

Jean Durant, ambassador from Ankuran, stands to address the Assembly. After a moment filled with the straightening of his jacket, a short sip of water, and a quiet throat-clearing, he speaks.

"The People's Federal Commonwealth cannot support this resolution, as we believe there are significant issues present which must be addressed.

"Most pressingly, the People's Commonwealth believes the definition of who is and is not a 'worker,' as defined by this proposed legislation, is insufficient to adequately guarantee protections for those in the workplace. As previously stated, there are vagaries surrounding what does and does not constitute a contract which we feel must be addressed to ensure proper protections. As written, this legislation seems to leave the definition of 'contract' at the discretion of each member nation and therefore fails to provide the protections it attempts to grant. Further—and, again, as previously stated—the stipulation that a worker receive some regular monetary reward calls into question the legislation's ability to protect freelancers and those whose income is dependent upon commission or other irregular forms of payment. Along similar lines, those who possess contracts and whose regular payments are material yet non-monetary—in which case we refer to goods, though upon further thought, labour cheques may also qualify—are not legally considered 'workers' and therefore not guaranteed protections by the proposed legislation.

"Even were the definition of what does and does not constitute a 'worker' so problematic, the current iteration of the proposal appears to suffer from several, shall we say, 'artefacts' from previous drafts, when its purpose was to protect the rights of women in the workplace. In particular, it protects from discrimination based only on matters of sex and gender, and makes no mention of other grounds for discrimination, such as those listed in General Assembly resolution number..." He pauses for a moment to flip through several documents before continuing. "Ah, yes, General Assembly Resolution number thirty-five, article one, section see―which is mentioned here only as a list of said examples, not out of any desire to see it directly referenced in the current proposal, in the unlikely event of its appeal."

His voice becoming raspy, Ambassador Durant sips again from the glass before him, this time keeping a hold on it as he speaks once more. "We also feel, as others have said, that the designation of a room purely for the purpose of breastfeeding to be unfairly limiting and prejudicial towards smaller businesses and those whose location makes compliance all but impossible, and further feel that the limitation of breastfeeding to, during a standard eight-hour workday, three twenty-minute spans of time to be unfairly limiting and possibly harmful to the nutritional and emotional wellbeing of new mothers and infants alike.

"In summation, the People's Federal Commonwealth of Ankuran finds this proposal to be deeply flawed, however good-intentioned it may be, and for these reasons, we will be voting against its adoption."

His address concluded, the ambassador once again takes his seat.

[McMasterdonia]

The North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs has issued a recommendation of against for the proposal "Rights of the Employed". In line with the vote on our regional forum, I have also cast my vote against the proposal.

[Picairn]

I can see that the resolution is very controversial, considering the razor-thin margin of its vote in the General Assembly.

[Heavens Reach]

I can see that the resolution is very controversial, considering the razor-thin margin of its vote in the General Assembly.

Our state is extremely pro-worker rights, and we are afraid that this resolution might even undermine those rights, despite being a good faith effort to support them. So, even amongst its ostensible supporters, there are those who are still against it.

[Bigoted Libertarians]

Opposed.

Again, why should the employer be on the hook for someone’s baby leave? The Corporation already has maternity leave — if you’re feeling maternal, you should leave.

Now get off my damn lawn.

[Astrobolt]

Opposed.

Again, why should the employer be on the hook for someone’s baby leave? The Corporation already has maternity leave — if you’re feeling maternal, you should leave.

Now get off my damn lawn.

"Maternity leave is essential in making sure a mother's freedom (the freedom to be free from discrimination) isn't being violated. That being said, there is an argument that small businesses might not have the means to pay maternity leave to their employees, and that the government should step in."

[Rolorkelm]

"Honorable Representatives of The Greater Soviet North America, on behalf of the people of Rolorkelm, I must vote against the issue at hand.

Such a global policy wouldn't do well as a one-size-fits-all set of laws, particularly in developing countries who may not have the economic capacity to immediately adhere to each policy stated in this proposal, such as the extended paid leave, and to countries culturally different from nations like our own, where specific labor rights, like the concept of publicly breastfeeding, even if in a separate room, could be frowned upon. And then, one must also consider the type of work and whether it's even safe for the mother or the baby to allow the breastfeeding to take place on work sites. Exceptions ought to exist within this law for such occupation instead of allowing it across the board.

The proposed resolution is admirably well-intended but it doesn't work so well as a set of mandated regulations required of all nations of varying economic capacity and cultural standards and customs. This is definitely the sort of proposal that should be down to individual nations to find a way to incorporate better worker rights into law, or even better, to create guidelines and recommendations and encourage businesses to work towards eventually adhering to such guides while allowing the flexibility needed to create exceptions."

Edward Buric, World Assembly Delegate to Rolorkelm.

[Tinhampton]

"...there is an argument that small businesses might not have the means to pay maternity leave to their employees, and that the government should step in."

This resolution does not forbid government subsidisation of parental leave programs.

[Ethnic Nations]

Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.

[Heavens Reach]

Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

[Ardiveds]

"The resolution's intentions are admirable and we agree such a resolution was direly needed. However, the definition of worker doesn't seem to include workers who don't expect or get a regular monetary reward and Moreover, the requirement of every business having a room solely for the purpose of breastfeeding seems overly burdensome on small businesses especially in crowded cities where land can be prohibitively expensive in commercially lucrative locations.

While the latter should realistically not be an issue in most cases given our relatively accessible daycare facilities, we'd rather not put a small business at risk if it happens to be somewhere daycare is not easily accessible. Sadly ambassador, we stand opposed."
--- Kaiser

OOC: Also, workers of lactating species like humans and cows? I mean its technically correct but really?

[The Palentine]

Normally this is the type of resolution I vote against. I can't let the fluffies here in the Festering Snakepit think I've gotten softer than a sneakerful of grits. Howver my Empress has requested I vote for the resolution. First and formost, She is a working mother. Granted her work is different than a normal 9-5 job, and she has many advantages and privilages, that most working mothers don't have. She does sympathise with them, and in the Palentine have a policy close to this one already in effect. Secondly, after listening to the debate and seeing and hearing some of the opposition's bitching, moaning, and vitriol, I've decided to vote FOR out of spite.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Marxist Germany]

Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

"I implore you to open a psychology book before making such claims. Additionally, businesses should retain the right to hire and fire whomever they wish."

[Laeden]

Terrible resolution. No employer should be forced to employ the mentally ill including those suffering from gender dysphoria.

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.

Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?

[Ardiveds]

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.

Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?

OOC: it's true that employers shouldn't be forced to hire anybody but it's also true that they should be held accountable for rejecting or firing people based on arbitrary personal biases. Unless a job requires one to conform to the gender assigned to them at birth (dunno what kind of job that would be), not letting a transgender person do it seems arbitrary unless they have some other issue.

[Wallenburg]

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

"I implore you to open a psychology book before making such claims.

Psychologists agree that being transgender does not require gender dysphoria.

Additionally, businesses should retain the right to hire and fire whomever they wish."

That ship sailed with GA #35.

[Heavens Reach]

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

"I implore you to open a psychology book before making such claims. Additionally, businesses should retain the right to hire and fire whomever they wish."

Ambassador, I was specifically hired for my position because I'm an expert in psychology and neuroscience.

OOC: no, really.

[Heavens Reach]

Being transgender is not the same as suffering from gender dysphoria, ambassador, and employers should absolutely be forced to employ the mentally ill. Though these ideas are unrelated.

(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.

Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?

No, ambassador, I don't think we should.

OOC: because mentally ill doesn't automatically mean low functioning, and because what you suggest would be barbaric anywhere that mental illness doesn't qualify as a disability, and disability status didn't come with some kind of automatic income. Barring that, it would still be both discriminatory and entirely unnecessary. Cynically allowing businesses to liquidate people for their labor, not on their merits, but merely in pursuit of some idealistic perfect bottom-line is exactly the kind of soulless corporate toxicity that we should be working to get away from.

[La Xinga]

(OOC) I wonder why the hell should an employer be forced to hire anyone, let alone a person who is mentally ill and may struggle to do what another person would accomplish effortlessly.

Perhaps we should let the enterpreneurs do whataver they want with their business instead of forcing them?

No, ambassador, I don't think we should.

OOC: because mentally ill doesn't automatically mean low functioning, and because what you suggest would be barbaric anywhere that mental illness doesn't qualify as a disability, and disability status didn't come with some kind of automatic income. Barring that, it would still be both discriminatory and entirely unnecessary. Cynically allowing businesses to liquidate people for their labor, not on their merits, but merely in pursuit of some idealistic perfect bottom-line is exactly the kind of soulless corporate toxicity that we should be working to get away from.

OOC; What if their mental illness makes them really low-productive or dangerous, like exploding a nuclear plant?

[La Xinga]

Do any of you see how close the vote is?

[Wallenburg]

Do any of you see how close the vote is?

No, the link to the WA page redirects me to Rick Astley's hit "Never Gonna Give You Up".