[DEFEATED] Repeal "Protected Working Leave"

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: This is my first repeal draft, so I will warmly welcome any comments and feedback on the way the repeal is constructed!

"Dear colleagues, our delegation has written the following repeal draft, which we hereby distribute for your perusal. While we commend the delegation from Cretox State on their intent to grant workers protection and social security, with all respect, we have concluded that the imprecise nature of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" creates too much instability and insecurity, as it leaves too much room for subjective interpretation. Also, after considering our own earlier proposal drafts, and the commentary that it garnered, we have come to recognise that a subject such as 'paid leave' would be best left for individual member states to regulate, and to not leave it to the mercy of the large and unruly bureaucracy of the WA. Its repeal will create room for a more refined handling of the subject, where member nations will be able to clearly define elements and conditions, instead of being forced to employ subjective and imprecise terminology.

As always, we welcome commentary and feedback with open arms.

- Dame Maria vyn Nysen,
WA Representative of the Royal State of Daarwyrth

Replacement for GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave": "Employee Rights" by Tinhampton

CURRENT DRAFT:

Repeal "Protected Working Leave"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #527 “Protected Working Leave” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding the intent of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" to provide economic and social security to the working classes of member nations; yet

Convinced that the current implementation of these social securities and economic protections in GAR #527 thwarts the resolution's intent;

Hereby finds the following:

1. GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides. For instance, care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" as per Clause 2b, who due to the nature of their illness would be incapable of fulfilling their basic needs independently, will necessarily, and thus reasonably, envelop that patient's entire lifespan, especially when the nature of their illness continues to decrease that patient's ability to survive on their own.
   
   
2. The vague and imprecise terminology, as noted under Clause 1 of this resolution, is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish. As such, GAR #527 is too unwieldy a tool because of its imprecision and ambiguity to appropriately cover the technical details of 'paid leave' as an aspect of employment law.
   
   
3. The definition of 'worker' in the target resolution includes employees on time-limited contracts, as it merely speaks of "bound by a contract" without differentiating between the perpetuity or non-perpetuity of such a contract. Workers on time-limited contracts are employed for a brief, limited duration to either fill-in for a worker who is on leave, or for specific employment contracts regarding one-time events such as a census count. This lack of differentiation in GAR #527 regarding the timely nature of contracts would allow an employee on a time-limited contract to file for paid leave on the first day of their employment, and remain on paid leave for the entire duration of their employment, which would create a significant hardship for employers in turn.
   
   
4. Under GAR #527's Clause 5c, member states can pass the costs of paid leave onto employers "capable of providing such without significant financial strain". However, the imprecise and vague nature of the phrasing of that condition creates too much room for subjective interpretation, and could force smaller businesses to shoulder the same burdens as large corporations, if an analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different. This would lead to a greater risk of bankruptcy of smaller businesses, which in turn creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave".

DRAFT 4:

Repeal "Protected Working Leave"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #527 “Protected Working Leave” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding the intent of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" to provide economic and social security to the working classes of member nations; yet

Convinced that the current implementation of these social securities and economic protections in GAR #527 thwarts the resolution's intent;

Hereby finds the following:

1. GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides. For instance, care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" as per Clause 2b, who due to the nature of their illness would be incapable of fulfilling their basic needs independently, will necessarily, and thus reasonably, envelop that patient's entire lifespan, especially when the nature of their illness continues to decrease that patient's ability to survive on their own.
   
   
2. The vague and imprecise terminology, as noted under Clause 1 of this resolution, is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and therefore undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish.
   
   
3. The definition of 'worker' in Article 1a fails to include employees on time limited contracts in its definition, and excludes them from the social and economic securities that GAR #527 provides. If the intent of the target resolution is "to ensure that working people in all member nations have access to paid leave and job security", then the exclusion of employees on time limited contracts from the social securities and economic protections that GAR #527 provides, creates unnecessary and unjust inequality, by ignoring the already vulnerable position that these employees experience, because of a lack of future employment certainty inherent to the nature of these types of contracts.
   
   
4. Under GAR #527's Clause 5c, member states can pass the costs of paid leave onto employers "capable of providing such without significant financial strain". However, the imprecise and vague nature of the phrasing of that condition creates too much room for subjective interpretation, and could force smaller businesses to shoulder the same burdens as large corporations, if an analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different. This would lead to a greater risk of bankruptcy of smaller businesses, which in turn creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave".

DRAFT 3:

Repeal "Protected Working Leave"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #527 “Protected Working Leave” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding the intent of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" to provide economic and social security to the working classes of member nations; yet

Convinced that the current implementation of these social securities and economic protections in GAR #527 thwarts the resolution's intent;

Hereby finds the following:

1. GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides. Care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" as per Clause 2b, who due to the nature of their illness would be incapable of fulfilling their basic needs independently, will necessarily, and thus reasonably, envelop that patient's entire lifespan, especially when the nature of their illness continues to decrease that patient's ability to survive on their own.
   
   
2. The vague and imprecise terminology, as noted under Clause 1 of this resolution, is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and therefore undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish.
   
   
3. The definition of 'worker' in Article 1a fails to include employees on time limited contracts in its definition, and excludes them from the social and economic securities that GAR #527 provides. If the intent of the target resolution is "to ensure that working people in all member nations have access to paid leave and job security", then the exclusion of employees on time limited contracts from the social securities and economic protections that GAR #527 provides, creates unnecessary and unjust inequality, by ignoring the already vulnerable position that these employees experience, because of a lack of future employment certainty inherent to the nature of these types of contracts.
   
   
4. Under GAR #527's Clause 5c, member states can pass the costs of paid leave onto employers "capable of providing such without significant financial strain". However, the imprecise and vague nature of the phrasing of that condition creates too much room for subjective interpretation, and could force smaller businesses to shoulder the same burdens as large corporations, if an analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different. This would lead to a greater risk of bankruptcy of smaller businesses, which in turn creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave".

DRAFT 2

Repeal "Protected Working Leave"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #527 “Protected Working Leave” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" to provide economic and social security to the working classes of member nations,

Yet CONVINCED that the current implementation of these social securities and economic protections in GAR #527 thwarts the resolution's intent,

Hereby finds the following:

1. GAR #527 speaks of 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' in Article 2, and has created the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave indefinitely, with the employer being forced to continue to pay out that worker's salary for the entire duration. The clause in question does this by using imprecise and vague terminology such as 'reasonable duration', in conjunction with the list of conditions that it provides. The reasonable amount of time required to care for a child can last for years, namely until that child reaches biological maturity, while care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" could even envelop that patient's entire lifespan.
   
   
2. The vague and imprecise terminology as noted under Clause 1 is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and therefore undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish.
   
   
3. The definition of 'worker' in Article 1a fails to include employees on time limited contracts within its definition, and therefore excludes them from the social and economic securities that GAR #527 seeks to provide, creating an unjust, and unnecessary inequality in the level of protection that is bestowed by the Articles of GAR #527, and thus further thwarts the very intent with which the legislation was implemented.
   
   
4. The target resolution has little regard for smaller businesses, and treats all employers as equal, when in reality such a uniformity is fictional. Under GAR #527, small business owners are forced to shoulder the same burdens as larger corporations when their employees are on paid leave, creating unjust, and unnecessary inequality by its very existence as a result, as the burdens placed on the shoulders of small business owners could lead them more easily to financial ruin than larger corporations. A greater risk of the bankruptcy of smaller businesses creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave".

DRAFT 1:

Repeal "Protected Working Leave"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #527 “Protected Working Leave” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Labour Rights) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intent of GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" to provide economic and social security to the working classes of member nations,

AFFIRMING that workers from all nations deserve protection in the event that they require paid leave from the labour that they perform,

Yet CONVINCED that the current implementation of these social securities and economic protections in GAR #527 thwart the resolution's intent,

Hereby finds the following:

1. Legislation originating from the World Assembly is too large a tool for a subject that requires finesse in its handling, as the implementation of a system like 'paid leave' should be founded upon a case-by-case basis, with an attention to detail. As such, individual member nations should have the right as well as room to regulate on the topic of paid leave on their own, so that each member state can establish social and financial securities that fit within their economic system. Overarching World Assembly law on 'paid leave' would impede upon the efficiency of its implementation.
   
   
2. The target resolution speaks of 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' in Article 2, and has created the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave indefinitely, with the employer being forced to continue to pay out that worker's salary for its entire duration. The clause in question does this by using imprecise and vague terminology such as 'reasonable duration', in conjunction with the list of conditions that it provides. The reasonable amount of time required to care for a child does not end within a number of weeks or months, yet can last for years, namely until that child reaches biological maturity. The same applies to "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent", whose care, under the term 'reasonable duration', could even envelop that patient's entire lifespan.
   
   
3. The vague and imprecise terminology as noted under Clause 2 is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. The usage of this imprecise and vague terminology is thwarting the very intent of the target resolution, namely to provide social and economic securities to workers. For example, it does not specify what conditions fall under '"serious illness", nor does it provide a detailed timeframe on "reasonable notice in the event of a foreseeable birth or adoption". The terminology used creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and therefore undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish.
   
   
4. The definition of 'worker' in Article 1a fails to include employees on time limited contracts within its definition, and therefore excludes them from the social and economic securities that GAR #527 seeks to provide, creating an unjust, and unnecessary inequality in the level of protection that is bestowed by the Articles of the target resolution, and thus further thwarts the very intent with which the legislation was implemented.
   
   
5. The target resolution has little regard for smaller businesses, and treats all employers as equal, when in reality such a uniformity is fictional. Under GAR #527, small business owners are forced to shoulder the same burdens as larger corporations when their employees are on paid leave, which may cause immense financial losses for the former, while barely affecting the latter. The target resolution continues to create unjust, and unnecessary inequality by its very existence, as the burdens currently placed on the shoulders of small business owners could lead them to financial ruin, which would in turn force them to file for bankruptcy. Such an event would create social and economic instability for both the business owner in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave".

[Daarwyrth]

"Dear colleagues, our delegation has distributed a new version of our draft for this repeal, as we recognised ourselves that the text needed a significant cut in content.

As such, our delegation hereby presents the slimmed down version of our repeal draft."

- Dame Maria vyn Nysen,
WA Representative of the Royal State of Daarwyrth

[Honeydewistania]

"Don't mean to be 'that guy', but what about replacing the good provisions in this resolution?"

[Daarwyrth]

"Don't mean to be 'that guy', but what about replacing the good provisions in this resolution?"

"When reviewing the comments the proposal draft of this resolution received, I found myself in agreement with the criticism that this should be left to individual members to regulate. As such, our delegation is not planning on writing a replacement draft.

However, if another delegation sees merit in an improved resolution that addresses the arguments of this repeal proposal, our delegation would be happy to coordinate with them regarding this repeal and a possible replacement, so one can complement the other."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I wouldn't bother bolding or capitalising 'Applauding' and 'Convinced'. It's also more conventional to move words like 'yet' to the end of the preceding clause.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. GAR #527 speaks of 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' in Article 2, and has created the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave indefinitely, with the employer being forced to continue to pay out that worker's salary for the entire duration. The clause in question does this by using imprecise and vague terminology such as 'reasonable duration', in conjunction with the list of conditions that it provides. The reasonable amount of time required to care for a child can last for years, namely until that child reaches biological maturity, while care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" could even envelop that patient's entire lifespan.
   
   
2. The vague and imprecise terminology as noted under Clause 1 is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and therefore undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish.
   
   
3. The definition of 'worker' in Article 1a fails to include employees on time limited contracts within its definition, and therefore excludes them from the social and economic securities that GAR #527 seeks to provide, creating an unjust, and unnecessary inequality in the level of protection that is bestowed by the Articles of GAR #527, and thus further thwarts the very intent with which the legislation was implemented.
   
   
4. The target resolution has little regard for smaller businesses, and treats all employers as equal, when in reality such a uniformity is fictional. Under GAR #527, small business owners are forced to shoulder the same burdens as larger corporations when their employees are on paid leave, creating unjust, and unnecessary inequality by its very existence as a result, as the burdens placed on the shoulders of small business owners could lead them more easily to financial ruin than larger corporations. A greater risk of the bankruptcy of smaller businesses creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I don't buy the implicit claim in section 1 that 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' means a child's entire period of minority. A nation which seeks to avoid such a burden would not make such a determination. The latter claim is stronger, but needs to be developed more. Establish why permanent care for certain disabilities may be necessary; something that is necessary is implicitly reasonable.

I agree with section 2. Section 3 is probably stronger if you advance a weighing calculus for protecting vulnerable people rather, clearly establishing the rationale for why something is unjust is stronger than simply asserting it is. The standard sheets on which resolutions are submitted have more than enough room to accommodate such claims. Similarly, impact your claims in the last section.

[Daarwyrth]

1. GAR #527 speaks of 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' in Article 2, and has created the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave indefinitely, with the employer being forced to continue to pay out that worker's salary for the entire duration. The clause in question does this by using imprecise and vague terminology such as 'reasonable duration', in conjunction with the list of conditions that it provides. The reasonable amount of time required to care for a child can last for years, namely until that child reaches biological maturity, while care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" could even envelop that patient's entire lifespan.
   
   
2. The vague and imprecise terminology as noted under Clause 1 is present throughout the entirety of GAR #527, with examples being: "reasonably be able to provide such" in Article 1.b.iii, "serious illness" in Article 2c, "reasonable notice" in Article 4a, "serious health conditions" in Article 4b, "unnecessarily onerous conditions" in Article 5a, and "without significant financial strain" in Article 5c. This imprecise and vague terminology creates large vacuums wherein subjective interpretations can thrive, and therefore undermines the security and protection the target resolution seeks to establish.
   
   
3. The definition of 'worker' in Article 1a fails to include employees on time limited contracts within its definition, and therefore excludes them from the social and economic securities that GAR #527 seeks to provide, creating an unjust, and unnecessary inequality in the level of protection that is bestowed by the Articles of GAR #527, and thus further thwarts the very intent with which the legislation was implemented.
   
   
4. The target resolution has little regard for smaller businesses, and treats all employers as equal, when in reality such a uniformity is fictional. Under GAR #527, small business owners are forced to shoulder the same burdens as larger corporations when their employees are on paid leave, creating unjust, and unnecessary inequality by its very existence as a result, as the burdens placed on the shoulders of small business owners could lead them more easily to financial ruin than larger corporations. A greater risk of the bankruptcy of smaller businesses creates social and economic instability for both the business owners in question, as well as the other workers in their employ.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I don't buy the implicit claim in section 1 that 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' means a child's entire period of minority. A nation which seeks to avoid such a burden would not make such a determination. The latter claim is stronger, but needs to be developed more. Establish why permanent care for certain disabilities may be necessary; something that is necessary is implicitly reasonable.

I agree with section 2. Section 3 is probably stronger if you advance a weighing calculus for protecting vulnerable people rather, clearly establishing the rationale for why something is unjust is stronger than simply asserting it is. The standard sheets on which resolutions are submitted have more than enough room to accommodate such claims. Similarly, impact your claims in the last section.

"I agree with the points and comments you have made, and I will see to it that they are worked into the new draft, which can be expected next week. Your input is very much appreciated."

[Bananaistan]

"Argument 3 is the key point I think.

"I'd watch out for argument 4. The target places the financial burden on member states rather than the employers and gives member states the option of passing the cost onto employers who can afford it. I'm not sure that this is recognised in argument 4.

"Broad support though. The technical details of employment law are difficult to appropriately cover in a one size fits all WA resolution without a lot unclear requirements which the target has and you have addressed."

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "Our apologies, due to unforeseen circumstances producing a new draft for this resolution took us longer than expected. Nonetheless, we have worked with the feedback and commentary that we received from the delegations of Imperium Anglorum and Bananaistan - for which we express our gratitude - and incorporated those into the newest draft. Our delegation is eager to hear this community's thoughts on the current text of this repeal proposal."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Does anyone have any comments and ideas on how to improve this repeal proposal?

[South St Maarten]

General support. Further than that, I pretty much echo the comments of those above. I don't support 1 because I believe that the word "reasonable" implies that unreasonable events, which you are referencing, won't take place. Now, as IA said, if you could specifically state that such reasonable request is unreasonable, and hence, the argument is invalid, I'd lend my support to that, if you get what I am saying. Otherwise, yeah, it looks pretty decent.

Also while I might also favor a replacement resolution outlining some of the points in Protected Working Leave, as you stated that you don't necessarily support one as the author I'd leave it out.

[Daarwyrth]

General support. Further than that, I pretty much echo the comments of those above. I don't support 1 because I believe that the word "reasonable" implies that unreasonable events, which you are referencing, won't take place. Now, as IA said, if you could specifically state that such reasonable request is unreasonable, and hence, the argument is invalid, I'd lend my support to that, if you get what I am saying. Otherwise, yeah, it looks pretty decent.

Also while I might also favor a replacement resolution outlining some of the points in Protected Working Leave, as you stated that you don't necessarily support one as the author I'd leave it out.

OOC: I'm a little unsure whether I get your comment about Clause 1. IA stated that the bit about raising a child was problematic, yet the second part about taking care of a sick person could work. As such, I tried to elaborate on that, to explain how care for someone with an illness that makes it impossible for them to live independently, necessarily needs care for the rest of their (remaining) life, which under the target resolution would be reasonable. Do you mean to say that this argument is still too unclear in Clause 1?

[South St Maarten]

General support. Further than that, I pretty much echo the comments of those above. I don't support 1 because I believe that the word "reasonable" implies that unreasonable events, which you are referencing, won't take place. Now, as IA said, if you could specifically state that such reasonable request is unreasonable, and hence, the argument is invalid, I'd lend my support to that, if you get what I am saying. Otherwise, yeah, it looks pretty decent.

Also while I might also favor a replacement resolution outlining some of the points in Protected Working Leave, as you stated that you don't necessarily support one as the author I'd leave it out.

OOC: I'm a little unsure whether I get your comment about Clause 1. IA stated that the bit about raising a child was problematic, yet the second part about taking care of a sick person could work. As such, I tried to elaborate on that, to explain how care for someone with an illness that makes it impossible for them to live independently, necessarily needs care for the rest of their (remaining) life, which under the target resolution would be reasonable. Do you mean to say that this argument is still too unclear in Clause 1?

I suppose I worded that wrong. I meant that the two sentences in the clause seem slightly disconnected. A simple "for instance" or "for example" would suffice because it would directly link the example in sentence two to the issue in sentence one.

i.e.

GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides. For example, care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" as per Clause 2b, who due to the nature of their illness would be incapable of fulfilling their basic needs independently, will necessarily, and thus reasonably, envelop that patient's entire lifespan, especially when the nature of their illness continues to decrease that patient's ability to survive on their own.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I'm a little unsure whether I get your comment about Clause 1. IA stated that the bit about raising a child was problematic, yet the second part about taking care of a sick person could work. As such, I tried to elaborate on that, to explain how care for someone with an illness that makes it impossible for them to live independently, necessarily needs care for the rest of their (remaining) life, which under the target resolution would be reasonable. Do you mean to say that this argument is still too unclear in Clause 1?

I suppose I worded that wrong. I meant that the two sentences in the clause seem slightly disconnected. A simple "for instance" or "for example" would suffice because it would directly link the example in sentence two to the issue in sentence one.

i.e.

GAR #527 speaks of "a reasonable duration of paid leave" in Clause 2, and creates the possibility for workers to remain on paid leave for disproportionately extended periods of time, because of the imprecise and vague terminology in the list of conditions that it provides. For example, care for "a seriously ill or physically or mentally disabled spouse, child below the age of majority, parent, grandparent, or dependent" as per Clause 2b, who due to the nature of their illness would be incapable of fulfilling their basic needs independently, will necessarily, and thus reasonably, envelop that patient's entire lifespan, especially when the nature of their illness continues to decrease that patient's ability to survive on their own.

OOC: Ah, right! I agree, that would work quite well, yes. I'll update it in a new draft in a minute or so thanks for catching it!

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "Our delegation has put forward a new draft with the suggestion from South St. Maarten's delegation worked into the text. Commentary and thoughts remain, as always, welcome and highly appreciated."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Moving this draft to last call! Any last comments and feedback would be most appreciated

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: A few moments ago, our delegation has moved to the submission of this repeal proposal, and has sent the accompanying telegram campaign to the Honourable Delegates of the World Assembly:

Esteemed Delegates of the World Assembly,

Rest assured, our excessive campaigning of last time will not be repeated, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my apologies for any inconvenience that we may have caused.

Our current telegram campaign is regarding the proposal "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”", which our delegation has submitted to the General Assembly today.

GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" has noble intentions by offering economic and social security to workers across the member states of the World Assembly, yet suffers from a number of flaws that effectively thwart the resolution's intents:

1. The language in the resolution proposal is too vague and ambiguous, creating too much room for subjective interpretations, for a regulation that needs precise and detailed wording.
   
   
2. The resolution excludes an entire group of employees, namely workers on time-limited contracts, and offers no protection or security to people who are already in a vulnerable position due to the nature of how time-limited contracts work.
   
   
3. The resolution makes no distinction between larger corporations and smaller businesses, and therefore puts the latter at risk of having to shoulder financial burdens that would be too heavy for them to bear.

Luckily, our delegation has taken note of a much better resolution proposal that is currently being drafted, namely the draft named "Employee Rights", which deals with the subject of 'paid leave' in a much more precise and detailed manner than GAR #527 currently does.

As such, I ask in name of our nation's delegation for your approval of our repeal proposal "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”".

Yours faithfully,

Dame Maria vyn Nysen,
WA Representative of the Royal State of Daarwyrth

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: In light of the GenSec's ruling - with which I entirely agree - I'll be moving to a re-draft of this repeal proposal wherein Clause 3 will be removed. I'll be moving to resubmission thereafter!

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "After a brief revision process by our delegation, we have produced the following re-draft of our repeal proposal, wherein Clause 3 has been removed in its entirety, and Clause 2 has had a slight amendment to its text. We are looking at a re-submission of this issue tomorrow, unless we receive feedback or commentary on the current draft that would cause us to delay re-submission."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'd consider adding an argument that the inclusion of timed contracts in the target is bad. Someone could be in on a contract for a short period of time and out on leave for the full length.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I'd consider adding an argument that the inclusion of timed contracts in the target is bad. Someone could be in on a contract for a short period of time and out on leave for the full length.

OOC: Done, I've re-added Clause 3 but along those lines that you mentioned into the current draft. Does this sound reasonable?

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: After a brief redraft of our repeal proposal, our delegation has removed to a re-submission of "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”", and has sent the accompanying telegram campaign to the Delegates of the World Assembly:

Esteemed Delegates of the World Assembly,

In light of the re-submission of our proposal "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”", we would like to ask you, the Honourable Delegates of this international body, for your approval of our repeal proposal.

GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" has noble intentions in regard to providing economic and social security to the working classes of member nations, yet because of its flaws the resolution thwarts the very intents with which it was written. Two of the most concerning flaws include the fact that employees can remain on disproportionately extended periods of paid leave under the term 'reasonable duration', as well as the fact that the imprecise and ambiguous wording prevalent throughout the resolution's text create enormous vacuums of subjective interpretation that undermine the protections and securities that the resolution intends to grant.

Furthermore, the subject of employment law needs careful, precise and detailed regulation, which can not be properly granted nor provided by a broad-strokes, one-size-fits-all approach like GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" currently is. The subject should either be left to the member states of the World Assembly to legislate upon individually, or approached in a well-conceived, precise and detailed manner. Our delegation has taken note of a potential proposal that could replace the protections provided by GAR #527, namely "Employee Rights". That said, we will leave it to the nations of the World Assembly to decide whether a replacement would be preferred, over leaving 'paid leave' as an aspect of employment law to individual member nations to regulate on.

In light of this, as well as the extended argumentation in our repeal proposal, our delegation asks you, the Honourable Delegates of the World Assembly, to help us stop this inefficient and burdensome approach to paid leave, by approving our proposal "Repeal: “Protected Working Leave”".

Yours faithfully,
Dame Maria vyn Nysen
WA Representative of the Royal State of Daarwyrth

[Wallenburg]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. I don't buy the implicit claim in section 1 that 'a reasonable duration of paid leave' means a child's entire period of minority. A nation which seeks to avoid such a burden would not make such a determination. The latter claim is stronger, but needs to be developed more. Establish why permanent care for certain disabilities may be necessary; something that is necessary is implicitly reasonable.

It seems this was never adequately addressed. This repeal rejects Reasonable Nation Theory and engages in such a forced interpretation as to come across to me as an Honest Mistake violation. No self-interested nation would take the target resolution to require indefinitely long workers' leave as this repeal claims. The target provides workers "a reasonable duration of paid leave to the extent necessary to adequately service" certain conditions. No self-interested nation will interpret this to include the entire childhood of offspring, nor the entire lifespan of an elderly individual with a terminal illness. Because member states can and have chosen to interpret the target in more reasonable ways, the repeal's interpretation is an inaccurate image of what the target mandates.

The rest of the repeal seems legal to me but suffers from some pretty serious issues. Regarding section 3, workers employed constantly on short-term contracts are no less deserving of a quality life and workplace rights than someone who has worked at the union factory for 35 years. Regarding section 4, it boils down to "member states can make mistakes", which was always going to be the case. The idea that member states will not do their best to reduce the likelihood of a business shouldering costs it cannot actually afford is ridiculous. Far more likely is that member states will frequently allow businesses not to shoulder those costs even when they could afford them. Section 2 contains some fair concerns, but with no replacement effort comes across as a facetious cover for a strictly anti-worker repeal.

[Daarwyrth]

but with no replacement effort comes across as a facetious cover for a strictly anti-worker repeal.

Vyn Nysen: "The replacement effort is not led by our delegation but by the delegation of Tinhampton. Don't make accusations you can't prove, Ambassador, as our campaign telegrams actively point to "Employee Rights" as a replacement for this resolution."

[Wallenburg]

but with no replacement effort comes across as a facetious cover for a strictly anti-worker repeal.

Vyn Nysen: "The replacement effort is not led by our delegation but by the delegation of Tinhampton. Don't make accusations you can't prove, Ambassador, as our campaign telegrams actively point to "Employee Rights" as a replacement for this resolution."

OOC: Thank you for pointing that out, will take a look at TIn's plan.

IC: Ogenbond scrunches his eyebrow. "What? Gerald, what's he talking about? That didn't show up in my morning brief."

Gerald hunches over the representative's shoulder, tabs through the folder on the desk, and retrieves a copy of the replacement effort. "Sir, you have to read through the whole thing."