[Submitted] Repeal "Rights of the Employed"

[Marxist Germany]

Repeal: Rights of the Employed
Category: Repeal | GA#491

---

The World Assembly,

Recognising that the target resolution's intents are noble and in alignment with the values of this august assembly; however, it has many glaring issues and problematic mandates;

Deploring the definition of "worker', as it leaves out workers who are not contracted to an employer, but rather work as freelancers;

Noting the lack of definition for what constitutes "other unwanted approaches" in section D3, which can be abused by employees who might claim that meeting other certain employees, or that some aspects of the work, may be considered an "unwanted approach" subject to mandate D3;

Concerned by the mandates in section E3, which force employers that may not have the potential resources to provide an area exclusively for breastfeeding, regardless of the potential financial repercussions; explicitly excludes having a bathroom present in the same area as breastfeeding, which may prove greatly inconvenient to both workers and employers; puts the burden of proving the necessity of breastfeeding on the worker, which may be inappropriate and uncomfortable for the worker; and fails to address the use of bottle-feeding, which may be preferable to breastfeeding in certain situations;

Further concerned by the mandates of section E1 and E2, which do not take into account workers who might not even be contracted for longer than 8 weeks, or employers who are unable to provide such exuberant benefits due to financial strains;

Decrying the lack of provisions regarding the hiring of breastfeeding workers, which may allow businesses to reject workers who breastfeed their children in order to avoid potential costs associated thereupon,

Believing that a better and more adequate replacement is needed;

Hereby repeals GA#491, "Rights of the Employed."

[Morover]

"Support. Perhaps make mention of a replacement in the actual text of the repeal."

[Kenmoria]

“In the ‘concerned’ clause, I believe that ‘exclusive’ would sound better as ‘exclusively’. This draft has my full support, as the target resolution had several flaws.”

[Terttia]

“The current draft has my full support, as the target is flawed.”

[Morover]

"It may not be entirely necessary, but I'd like to see an expansion of criticism with the breastfeeding clauses. I've outlined the specifics here." Darin Perise hands the German Ambassador a sticky note with some hastily-written inscriptions on it:

1. Breastfeeding can always be avoided, it's just a question of what the repercussions would be for the child. This may be pushing good faith, but I feel as if businesses have more leeway than member-nations themselves, which could lead to some issues.
2. "Proving" the need to breastfeed may be only possible through extremely uncomfortable circumstances,
3. It doesn't cover the bottling up of breast milk, only of direct breast-to-child feeding.
4. Are there non-mammalian species known to be in the World Assembly? I don't think this would lead to issues with them, but it's food-for-thought

[Cretox State]

OOC: I was going to do a repeal myself, but yours looks solid. I'll leave mine here in case you want to incorporate any part of it:

General Assembly Resolution #491 “Rights of the Employed” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the need for expanding the scope of workers’ rights protected by international legislation;

Commending the efforts of GAR#491, “Rights of the Employed”, in enumerating several key protections, such as freedom from gender-related workplace discrimination and a guarantee of parental leave;

Concerned, however, that the resolution’s definition of a “worker” inexplicably excludes subcontractors and those who set their own working hours, preventing them from benefiting under the legislation’s clauses;

Troubled that the resolution requires workers prove to their employers the necessity of their breastfeeding in the workplace, a condition which is both obviously problematic and flies in the face of the legislation’s purpose;

Further troubled that the resolution mandates a private area in the workplace “reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding,” a costly and unrealistic burden on small businesses which are likely to have few, if any, breastfeeding employees in the first place;

Puzzled at the lack of any mention of discriminatory practices regarding the hiring of breastfeeding employees;

Confounded by the granting of at least eight weeks of parental leave following the adoption of any child below the age of majority, despite the fact that older children usually do not require special caregiver attention and are often employed themselves;

Lamenting that the above issues prevent the otherwise respectable legislation in question from achieving its commendable goals;

Confident that a future proposal which resolves said issues would be wholeheartedly embraced by this august body;

Hereby repeals GAR#491, “Rights of the Employed”.

[Tinhampton]

Observing that the mandates in sections E1 and E2 duplicate each other, and render E2 superfluous, as employers that want to only provide 4 weeks of parental leave as is clarified by section E2 won't be able to do so due to the clarification in E1

Not true. Employees may claim up to eight weeks of parental leave in total as per E1. E2 clarifies that up to four weeks of this parental leave may be spent before childbirth (or planned adoption date, etc.); at least four weeks may be claimed after birth/adoption.

[American Pere Housh]

"If you have a replacement proposal for the one you want repealed then I will support this repeal. If you do not have a replacement proposal then I can't support this."

[WA Kitty Kops]

4. Are there non-mammalian species known to be in the World Assembly? I don't think this would lead to issues with them, but it's food-for-thought

OOC: Only way I could think of for the resolution to create issues for non-mammalian populations would be if there was a single breastfeeder employee, but actually in that case I would imagine that a space for them to breastfeed would be easier to find, as nobody wants to see something weird like that happening (any more than most people would want to entertain the thought of having to watch parents throw up food into their children's mouths, as is norm in many animal species), and because it might be difficult/impossible for them to find alternatives to breastfeeding.

I would still excempt that from workplaces that are not safe to bring a baby into (basically you might violate the Child Abuse Ban resolution).

[Marxist Germany]

"I have updated the draft as suggested by the ambassadors from Morover and Cretox State."

OOC:

Observing that the mandates in sections E1 and E2 duplicate each other, and render E2 superfluous, as employers that want to only provide 4 weeks of parental leave as is clarified by section E2 won't be able to do so due to the clarification in E1

Not true. Employees may claim up to eight weeks of parental leave in total as per E1. E2 clarifies that up to four weeks of this parental leave may be spent before childbirth (or planned adoption date, etc.); at least four weeks may be claimed after birth/adoption.

Except that isn't what the resolution says:

shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

There is very little difference between "upon", and "after", from a substantial point of view. Does the aforementioned result in mothers basically being able to take the 4 weeks whenever they wish, even after, lets say, 10 years from the date of birth?

[Heavens Reach]

As we contended during this resolution's vote, we fully agree that this proposal fails to protect the bulk of workers, and that it may, therefore, even be harmful to the overall goal of advancing workers rights by blocking better, but otherwise too-similar legislation. However, as with all repeals of resolutions that do some good, we can not support this without seeing a complete, suitable, draft of a replacement proposal.

[Picairn]

"As long as a replacement is being developed, this has Picairn's full support."

[Astrobolt]

"As long as a replacement is being developed, this has Picairn's full support."

"I have a feeling that the ambassador from (Marxist) Germany is not seeking to replace "Rights of the employed", but merely just to repeal the resolution. If this is correct, then Astrobolt stands opposed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Eliminate the unnecessary bolding.

[Marxist Germany]

Eliminate the unnecessary bolding.

OOC: Gotta admit, after a while, the bolding does appear jarring and unprofessional. I will no longer be using it and will remove it from current drafts.

[Cretox State]

OOC: (Don’t mean to thread hijack) I drafted a potential replacement for “Rights of the Employed” here.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

All OOC:

1. Convenient link to target resolution, as there is none in OP

2.

The current wording of the stuff about Clauses E1/E2 is an Honest Mistake IMO. But there is an actual weakness in the target with those two clauses, namely that allowing an employer to require as much as four weeks either before or after the date of birth/adoption is interference in the prospective parent's medical decisions i.e. "When is the best time for me to stop working? Well, my employer says..."

Not true. Employees may claim up to eight weeks of parental leave in total as per E1. E2 clarifies that up to four weeks of this parental leave may be spent before childbirth (or planned adoption date, etc.); at least four weeks may be claimed after birth/adoption.

Except that isn't what the resolution says:

shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;

There is very little difference between "upon", and "after", from a substantial point of view. Does the aforementioned result in mothers basically being able to take the 4 weeks whenever they wish, even after, lets say, 10 years from the date of birth?

The target seems pretty clear to me - it says that workers must be able take 8 weeks total; 4 of which must be able to be taken after the date of birth or adoption. That is, if the employer allows the minimum legal amount of leave, they must allow up to half of it to follow the actual birth date, regardless of when that falls. The weakness here isn't what the repeal says it is,¹ and the current wording is probably an Honest Mistake. I don't think a good faith interpretation of the text can claim that one clause negates the other. Clause E2 clearly restricts employers from requiring more than half of the explicitly allotted minimum 8 weeks be taken either side of the date of birth or adoption. It certainly does not permit employers to only allow 4 weeks total leave. Please refer to the key word "this" in Clause E2 - "[each worker] shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority" (emphasis added). That can only be referring to the antecedent eight weeks mentioned in the prior clause.



¹ Rather, the weakness in the target's wording is that it leaves a regulatory hole in cases where a worker anticipating birth begins leave at a certain date, but the baby doesn't come on time.

Say a worker is told by her doctor to expect birth on or around Monday, July 1. With only half of leave required to be claimable on either side of the expected birth date ("EDOB"), her sadistic employer decides she must begin leave the full four allowable weeks prior to the EDOB. Being a good and obedient employee, she begins leave on June 3. The kid, however, does not come on the EDOB but rather 17 days late (Thu 7/18). The mother (worker) is still guaranteed four weeks' leave after the actual DOB... but she's already taken most of seven weeks out of a total of eight required by law, leaving a mere week-and-a-day available to be taken as paid leave. It is therefore a weakness in the target that it might permit employers to require as much as half of the paid leave to be taken prior to the date of birth, leaving new parents whose medical plans and timing don't pan out to have wasted their paid leave when they might still wish to have been working, so as to take the maximum possible amount of paid leave when they truly need it.

In short, the target should properly require employers to permit paid leave to be taken at the employee's sole discretion,² rather than permitting employers to overwrite their petty requirements upon a whole month of an expectant parent's medical needs.

² (albeit some other restrictions might be reasonable - perhaps leave must be taken within a reasonable amount of time of the actual date of birth or adoption - maybe a year? ...and with advance notice given prior to the expected date, say a month beforehand?) but that's not relevant to the repeal, only fleshing out the idea lest this come off as being unreasonably harsh on employers

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Removed bolding and HM.

[Euclid Island]

"Although it may not be much, this draft has the current support from our nation, whether this be replaced with the draft made by Cretox State or just repealed in its entirety."

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: This will be submitted as soon as I can do so.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Submission tomorrow.

[Comfed]

As the target does not exclude the possibility of new legislation for the problems that you mention, I will not support this bill.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: This failed to reach quorum by about 10 approvals last time, I intend on submitting it tomorrow.