[SUBMITTED] Fair Work Visas Act

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fair Work Visas Act
Regulation: Labour Rights

The World Assembly,

Believing that restrictions which tie work visas to the consent of a worker's current employer serve a profoundly anti-competitive effect by tying workers to the grace of their supervisors and

Concerned of the effect, both for domestic and foreign workers, this has on the ability for member nations to enforce workplace safety when possible whistleblowers are so dependent on their employers for legal status, therefore enacts as follows:

1. A "covered worker" is a worker in a member nation who is legally present and permitted to be employed due to a work visa.
   
   
2. Covered workers must be permitted to change employment and employers or otherwise leave that member nation, without regard to the approval of a current or previous employer.
   
   
3. No work visa may be revoked because a covered worker has a frictional break in employment. A break in employment is frictional when it is shorter than or equal to the time it would take a similarly situated native worker to find new and comparable employment in the same industry.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't want to steal Boston Castle's fire here, but I wrote this draft early in the month (in response to an Economist article on reforms to work visa abuse in Qatar) and his post reminded me of it.

[Hulldom]

I don't want to steal Boston Castle's fire here, but I wrote this draft early in the month (in response to an Economist article on reforms to work visa abuse in Qatar) and his post reminded me of it.

Not a problem at all! I think the two actually complement each other well in terms of what's covered.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I intend to submit this next week.

[Simone Republic]

Appalled at the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts to prevent workers from accepting higher-paying employment offers

That's already covered by GA#681, which came after this draft. (Your name was on that as well, mind you).

1. A "covered worker" is a worker in a member nation who is legally present and permitted to be employed due to a work visa.
   

1. What happens if a WA state changes its laws to prohibit certain types of covered workers? This particularly might include skilled workers where the WA states that there is no longer a shortage of such skills (Australia has a skilled occupation list which varies from time to time, so some workers have been chucked out on the grounds that their skills are no longer in demand).
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/w ... ation-list

2. What about workers employed due to a non-work visa, such as a residence visa or a dependent visa? Do working holidays visas count? Dependent visas that permit work can still be lost on the grounds of a loss of dependency status.

3. Also visas for seafarers (such as "working" only in the sense of them driving a ship within the territorial waters of a state, or say fishing within the terrioritial waters of a state) or aircraft captains (again, "working" only in the sense of them taxiing on the tarmac). This seems to indiscriminately allow them to switch jobs halfway through a fishing voyage, say.

4. You may or may not need a national security clause (681 has one) depending on how you interpret existing national security regulations regarding employment of foreign workers in sensitive positions. (This is unlikely since for example the CIA would not permit dual citizens to work for them, neither does MI6, but it's somewhat plausible).

No contractual non-compete or anti-poaching clause may be enforced in any member nation on any worker unless the claimant can show an objective procompetitive justification therefor or it is otherwise permitted by GA law.

1. Again, this is to some extent made redundant by GA#681 which outright banned any contractual term that "hinders an employee from seeking or accepting roles with another employer". So there's nothing where GA law would permit this anyway unless 681 is repealed.

2. What about guest workers that regularly rotate between member states? Basically say Mexicans coming up to pick fruit in Texas or California. They are going to rotate between farms anyway.

3. What about self-employed workers that entered via an investment visa (or one of those visas that allows self-employment)?

No work visa may be revoked because a covered worker has a frictional break in employment. A break in employment is frictional when it is shorter than or equal to the time it would take a similarly situated native worker to find new employment.

This could still end up quite short. Hong Kong is only two weeks for domestic servants, roughly on the grounds that a native domestic worker can easily find a job as a cashier at a convenience store at any time (since those jobs are very short-staffed in Hong Kong).

Even if the timeframe is the same, this would probably still disadvantage the foreign worker because the foreign worker is not likely to have the same level of local connections in seeking new employment opportunities compared to a local worker. Whether that's a feature or a bug is up to you.

[Fachumonn]

Support.

IA you are something else.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It strikes me that most of the questions that Simone posed above are answered by "but those people are not impacted by the problem at hand or but (1) they wouldn't try to change jobs while literally in the middle of flying the plane and (2) they would be covered by normal criminal law".

I am aware of the resolution my name is on; that's why it has minor duplication with exception by resolution. There are two questions remaining: (1) covered workers whose presence is no longer wanted and (2) frictional unemployment times. With the former, I think it unfair that someone could be removed just because demand filled in but this resolution is more about reducing private actors' leverage than entirely reforming member nation immigration policy. But on the latter, it says "similarly situated"; a nepo-baby is not similarly situated. I'll extend thought to "find a like position" or something of that sort.

[Simone Republic]

It strikes me that most of the questions that Simone posed above are answered by "but those people are not impacted by the problem at hand or but (1) they wouldn't try to change jobs while literally in the middle of flying the plane and (2) they would be covered by normal criminal law".

I am aware of the resolution my name is on; that's why it has minor duplication with exception by resolution. There are two questions remaining: (1) covered workers whose presence is no longer wanted and (2) frictional unemployment times. With the former, I think it unfair that someone could be removed just because demand filled in but this resolution is more about reducing private actors' leverage than entirely reforming member nation immigration policy. But on the latter, it says "similarly situated"; a nepo-baby is not similarly situated. I'll extend thought to "find a like position" or something of that sort.

Well, I just tried to think of every angle I can possibly think of, so it ended up being a round-the-world trip on employment laws, at least in those jurisdictions where I have had some experience.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I submitted this. https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1712462703. A continuous telegram campaign should be starting soon. The provisions relating to non-competes were removed on advice received.

[Tinhampton]

Unconditionally supportive, approved and got the telegram.

[Fachumonn]

Approved, and I support.