All OOC:
1.
Convenient link to target resolution, as there is none in OP
2.
Marxist Germany wrote:Tinhampton wrote: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
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 10:57 am