[DEFEATED] Paid Leave Act

[Minskiev]

(Image)

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, "Paid Leave Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

Unsure if your previous IFV that stated intended language mattered more than actual language or this IFV which strawmans to no end is worse.

[Minskiev]

Before voting, I would like to bring into question what constitutes "an irreversible illness or injury." I feel as if this clause could be exploited by workers to get 4 weeks of paid leave over illnesses or injuries that do not sensibly require such a long period. Is a broken finger not technically irreversible? Won't it never be 100% as useful as it once was? But don't most miss just a day or two of work over a broken finger in the real world? Is Chicken Pox not an irreversible illness as once you get it once you technically "always have it"? Yet isn't the recovery time from Chicken Pox far shorter than 4 weeks typically? I feel like the list of technicalities like these, especially regarding the breaking of bones, could be endless. Also, could one not also stay out 6 weeks because they claim they must provide care for someone with an "irreversible injury," while in all reality they are just doing a small handful of household chores while their grandmas finger is in a stint and so she is technically unable to "function?" Just some concerns that came to mind while contemplating my vote, would love to hear some others thoughts on the matter.

A broken finger is reversible. Your body heals. It isn’t about going to the exact 100% functioning state that it was at before, it’s if it can go from broken to not broken. And with your latter claim - that’s fair. An argument could be that the symptoms are reversible, but one may interpret irreversible illness to mean that, maybe. However I must ask - do medical professionals treat people who once had chicken pox to still have it? Third, grandma breaking a finger is both reversible and doesn’t stop her from functioning - she has 9 others. I don’t believe in your arguments, sorry.

[Terra Animo]

Any reason this is being voted against so bad? I admit I'm not the best at reading kind of between the lines of texts like that but what I read seemed good - so what's up with the votes?

It's based around a human worker rather than going interspecies... Given that doing so would require a whole series of dupes with the only differences being in how they are worded or structured to apply to various non-human species.

That and probably some other things that I won't know about.

But, of course, these are just assumptions.

I’m new to this whole ordeal so please forgive me if the following statement is naive. But if this is a valid argument, then couldn’t the same argument over the lack of accountability for non-human species be made for an incredibly large percentage of all health and drug related laws that have been passed, as the bodily functions or chemical processing of drugs could be so vastly different than that of humans that it makes the laws passed inapplicable. For example, couldn’t any ordinances surrounding the banning/limiting of any given drug be pitfalled with the “fact” that “x” species does not process said drug in a way humans do? And could not any abortion accessibility related laws be pitfalled with the “fact” that an abortion for “x” species would be virtual suicide due to the supposed “anatomical makeup” of “x” species? Just thoughts, as said please correct me if I am incorrect in drawing these conclusions.

[Minskiev]

Any reason this is being voted against so bad? I admit I'm not the best at reading kind of between the lines of texts like that but what I read seemed good - so what's up with the votes?

It's based around a human worker rather than going interspecies... Given that doing so would require a whole series of dupes with the only differences being in how they are worded or structured to apply to various non-human species.

That and probably some other things that I won't know about.

But, of course, these are just assumptions.

It once had a clause like that, but I used actual logic instead of what one would perceive the consequence of “not including” other species. It is below:

- species whose children take twice as long to grow would have only half the development, but it's not like a relative-6-week-old would be less dependent than a relative-12-week-old. Or a relative-1-week-old. Or a relative-day-old. So really you'd be expected to manage regardless. Hmm.
- species whose children take half as long to grow would have double the development. That'd make a relative-24-week-old, still dependent. But let's speed it up a little - a relative 13-year-old would be expected to be independent if their parents are at work. So if 12 weeks develops the child to, say, a relative 24-year-old, then that time might be too long. Although there is "should said child require such care", so in reality, the species wank is unnecessary.

[The Hazar Amisnery]

Is this saying that the government has to pay for the paid leave?

[Penguin Dictators]

How would it be a joke? That's how the GA has always functioned: accounting for sapient species that are not human. If you didn't know, that's how the NS universe works.

OOC: As someone who roleplays as a nation of dinosaurs, seconding this.

Thirding this as a nation ran by penguins and polar bears. Though I'm not seeing exactly where it is mentioning humans specifically since it seems to keep it pretty vague species wise. But I'm also old and crusty, so I probably missed the obvious.

[Xanthorrhoea]

However I must ask - do medical professionals treat people who once had chicken pox to still have it?

In a sense, yes, but only if it recurrs as shingles, which is usually regarded as a separate episode. I think Terra's issue with it is that 'permanent' isn't clearly defined, and as written, if an injury/illness has a permanent element, the worker gets a minimum of four weeks leave, regardless of how disabling that injury/illness is.

In terms of my own objection to this, my biggest issue is with clause 1ci defineing paid leave as requiring workers to receive "compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security." The fact that leave pay rates are independent of the employee's baseline pay opens massive loopholes that makes employees overpay some staff, and lets them underpay others.

Example 1: Let's say I work part time 10 hours a week, and due to my partner being laid off recently, I'm the sole income earner for my family. I don't make enough currently to be secure, and we're having to use savings to get by (an unfortunately all too common situation IRL). According to clause 1ci, if I take leave, my employer has to pay me enough during that leave to support my family and make them financially secure. As written, leave pay is completely independent of your usual salary/pay rate. Effectively, the worker gets a pay rise during their leave, as their baseline income does not make them financially secure, and their leave pay is required to. This opens employers up to huge unexpected costs, and will kill smaller businesses (especially during economic downturns). [EDIT] A quick re-read of clause 5e reduces (but doesn't eliminate) my concerns about bankrupting small businesses (taking general purpose leave might still bankrupt them). However, my main point stands regardless: taking leave should not be a temporary pay rise (or cut).

Example 2: Lets say I'm much more fortunate, and both I and my partner work full time in well paid jobs and have no kids. Our living expenses are relatively low as we spend all our time at work and have no dependants (grannie was living with us, but died last year). I take leave, but my partner is still working at the time. Because my partner has such a good income, we are economically secure even on their single salary. As written, my employer does not have to pay me anything during my leave, as I don't "require [the money] for economic security." Just because I'm currently well off should not entitle my employer to underpay me for my leave. I earned it just as much as someone who is currently struggling, and the extra pay could let me take a break in the future/buy a house/afford kids/buy a massive sex toy collection (whatver floats my boat really).

Because of the unpredictability in 1ci, (and some other issues pointed out by other parties), I can't vote for this in it's current form. We obviously need some kind of leave legislation, but we need one with fewer loopholes. Otherwise we'll just be back here again in 6 months after this gets repealed (if it passes).

[Nova Tavil]

"The definition of worker is far too expansive. You get a plumber in to fix your plumbing, they're now your employee. Is it a contract of service or contract for services?

... and during which the worker receives compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents from the member state's government, all employment benefits that the employer would provide if the worker were not on paid leave from the employer ...

"An employee getting holiday pay from their employer and from the state is excessive.

... four weeks ... six weeks ... twelve weeks

"We all know reasonable is bad but so are specific time limits. But if you must at least limit it to the duration of the illness. Everyone getting six weeks off because their crotch goblin has a cold is a sure fire way to economic disaster.

bar extra working hours with extra proportional or more pay

"What exactly does this mean?

"We also have the unsolved problem of balancing discrimination against employees of small business vs the state subsidising businesses.

"Also no mention of holidays. The whole thing is an assault on single people yet again."

It is the duty of the state to serve the people and the duty of an employer to provide sufficient compensation to their workers.

Using hateful language about children does not change the need for a parent to provide care for their children. More money in the pockets of the average person is better for the economy, not worse.

[Minskiev]

OOC: As someone who roleplays as a nation of dinosaurs, seconding this.

Thirding this as a nation ran by penguins and polar bears. Though I'm not seeing exactly where it is mentioning humans specifically since it seems to keep it pretty vague species wise. But I'm also old and crusty, so I probably missed the obvious.

The only species-related concerns brought up are differing growth rates under 2d, but if you think it through, it doesn't change anything.

[URA World Assembly Affairs]

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1616387

[Minskiev]

However I must ask - do medical professionals treat people who once had chicken pox to still have it?

In a sense, yes, but only if it recurrs as shingles, which is usually regarded as a separate episode. I think Terra's issue with it is that 'permanent' isn't clearly defined, and as written, if an injury/illness has a permanent element, the worker gets a minimum of four weeks leave, regardless of how disabling that injury/illness is.

Yes. In 4 weeks one would hope they can figure out how to live on.

In terms of my own objection to this, my biggest issue is with clause 1ci defineing paid leave as requiring workers to receive "compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security." The fact that leave pay rates are independent of the employee's baseline pay opens massive loopholes that makes employees overpay some staff, and lets them underpay others.

Yes, the overpaid would be usually underpaid, and the underpaid would be usually overpaid. It's great.

Example 1: Let's say I work part time 10 hours a week, and due to my partner being laid off recently, I'm the sole income earner for my family. I don't make enough currently to be secure, and we're having to use savings to get by (an unfortunately all too common situation IRL). According to clause 1ci, if I take leave, my employer has to pay me enough during that leave to support my family and make them financially secure. As written, leave pay is completely independent of your usual salary/pay rate. Effectively, the worker gets a pay rise during their leave, as their baseline income does not make them financially secure, and their leave pay is required to. This opens employers up to huge unexpected costs, and will kill smaller businesses (especially during economic downturns). [EDIT] A quick re-read of clause 5e reduces (but doesn't eliminate) my concerns about bankrupting small businesses (taking general purpose leave might still bankrupt them). However, my main point stands regardless: taking leave should not be a temporary pay rise (or cut).

Paying slightly higher for 2 weeks won't kill small businesses. If it does, they were doomed anyway. Moreover, if you think taking paid leave in that scenario would put you out of a job, you wouldn't take paid leave, especially if it's for general purposes. Furthermore, nobody said you'd take the two weeks all at once. It might be for only one day.

Example 2: Lets say I'm much more fortunate, and both I and my partner work full time in well paid jobs and have no kids. Our living expenses are relatively low as we spend all our time at work and have no dependants (grannie was living with us, but died last year). I take leave, but my partner is still working at the time. Because my partner has such a good income, we are economically secure even on their single salary. As written, my employer does not have to pay me anything during my leave, as I don't "require [the money] for economic security." Just because I'm currently well off should not entitle my employer to underpay me for my leave. I earned it just as much as someone who is currently struggling, and the extra pay could let me take a break in the future/buy a house/afford kids/buy a massive sex toy collection (whatver floats my boat really).

The definition of economic security in the resolution includes supporting dependents in the foreseeable future. If you were having kids/buying a house/buying a massive sex toy collection, the kids would be dependents, and thus you would have to be paid to get the economic security, while being able to buy the assets (if you were already locked in when the paid leave began) would be supporting yourself. Again, I don't think it's really necessary for one to get the pay if they don't need it at all.

Because of the unpredictability in 1ci, (and some other issues pointed out by other parties), I can't vote for this in it's current form. We obviously need some kind of leave legislation, but we need one with fewer loopholes. Otherwise we'll just be back here again in 6 months after this gets repealed (if it passes).

Meh.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Yes. In 4 weeks one would hope they can figure out how to live on.

I think you’re rather missing the point here. Get diagnosed with diabetes? Bang, 4 weeks automatic leave, even though your functioning is essentially unaffected (minus pricking your fingers and getting meds). Get diagnosed with migraines? Bang, 4 weeks. The wording of the clause means that the ‘directly compromising their ability to work’ requirement is excluded for permanent conditions. An automatic month of leave for minor long term conditions is unnecessary and open to abuse.

Paying slightly higher for 2 weeks won't kill small businesses. If it does, they were doomed anyway. Moreover, if you think taking paid leave in that scenario would put you out of a job, you wouldn't take paid leave, especially if it's for general purposes. Furthermore, nobody said you'd take the two weeks all at once. It might be for only one day.

‘Might’ is a poor excuse. If a system can be abused, it will. Someone in survival mode will take a short term cash influx over long-term employment if it’s a choice between starving now and starving in a month.

This also encourages businesses to discriminate against part-time employees. Why employ 4 people part-time, and open yourself up to potential quadrupling of leave costs, when you can employ one person full time, who you might be able to scam out of pay if they take leave?

The definition of economic security in the resolution includes supporting dependents in the foreseeable future. If you were having kids/buying a house/buying a massive sex toy collection, the kids would be dependents, and thus you would have to be paid to get the economic security, while being able to buy the assets (if you were already locked in when the paid leave began) would be supporting yourself. Again, I don't think it's really necessary for one to get the pay if they don't need it at all.

I’m planning on having 10 kids in the next 8 years. Pay me. It’s foreseeable.

[Fire Islands]

Hiya,

I don't think I've ever commented on one of these, so congrats for motivating me to do so lol

Regarding the following language:

"compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security"

I'm not clear on what the point of the "worker requires it for economic security" is, and neither the point of the clause as a whole. Way I see it, the best way to do it would be to simply require employers to pay for the leave days as if the worker had worked them, since that's an already set amount in the employment contract and it doesn't require any new figure to be arrived upon. It's a figure that already exists in the contract between the employer and the employee.

Additionally, regarding the medical leave part, wouldn't a better way to implement it be to let the treating doctor decide how many days are needed? A medic could simply decide, based on their medical knowledge, how long a worker would need to stop working to avoid any interference with a successful recovery.

Regarding care for close relatives, I understand the thinking behind including it in this, but I think it would be best to leave paid leave you'd take to take care of someone else as a different piece of legislation altogether, due to its complexity, and the fact that it involves a third party who is not, or at least doesn't necessarily have to be, in the employment of the employer who "grants" the paid leave.

Again as I said at the top, first time commenting on something like this, so I may be just way off on what I'm commenting about, sorry

[Polomon Islands]

Legit everyone: against against against

[Gonswanza]

Legit everyone: against against against

I mean it's full of glaring loopholes so it's fully warranted and justified.

[Outer Sparta]

Legit everyone: against against against

I don't think you're even reading why people are against it.

[The Universal Kingdom]

This would really help the hard-working people of The Universal Kingdom with their troubles. I say YES!

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, Paid Leave Act, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

'No Rec' or No Recommendation indicates a vote where, in the absence of a recommendation from the Office of WA Legislation, the Admiral Delegate General voted according to the majority stance of World Assembly members in the South Pacific.

[Polomon Islands]

Legit everyone: against against against

I don't think you're even reading why people are against it.

I dont need to read why people are against it.
Just saying that a lot of people are voting against it.

[Minskiev]

I think you’re rather missing the point here. Get diagnosed with diabetes? Bang, 4 weeks automatic leave, even though your functioning is essentially unaffected (minus pricking your fingers and getting meds). Get diagnosed with migraines? Bang, 4 weeks. The wording of the clause means that the ‘directly compromising their ability to work’ requirement is excluded for permanent conditions. An automatic month of leave for minor long term conditions is unnecessary and open to abuse.

...yeah. You're right. That's a reasonable interpretation.

‘Might’ is a poor excuse. If a system can be abused, it will. Someone in survival mode will take a short term cash influx over long-term employment if it’s a choice between starving now and starving in a month.

This also encourages businesses to discriminate against part-time employees. Why employ 4 people part-time, and open yourself up to potential quadrupling of leave costs, when you can employ one person full time, who you might be able to scam out of pay if they take leave?

Fair, if the compensation is above their normal income, for the first point. For the second point...why would anyone hire 4 part-time employees over 1 full-time employee? I don't think that concern holds water.

No. Claiming something in the future puts the burden of proof on you to support you. If you have no proof that you have 10 kids on the way now, then you wouldn't get paid to support the 10 kids.

[Minskiev]

Hiya,

I don't think I've ever commented on one of these, so congrats for motivating me to do so lol

Regarding the following language:

"compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security"

I'm not clear on what the point of the "worker requires it for economic security" is, and neither the point of the clause as a whole. Way I see it, the best way to do it would be to simply require employers to pay for the leave days as if the worker had worked them, since that's an already set amount in the employment contract and it doesn't require any new figure to be arrived upon. It's a figure that already exists in the contract between the employer and the employee.

Additionally, regarding the medical leave part, wouldn't a better way to implement it be to let the treating doctor decide how many days are needed? A medic could simply decide, based on their medical knowledge, how long a worker would need to stop working to avoid any interference with a successful recovery.

Regarding care for close relatives, I understand the thinking behind including it in this, but I think it would be best to leave paid leave you'd take to take care of someone else as a different piece of legislation altogether, due to its complexity, and the fact that it involves a third party who is not, or at least doesn't necessarily have to be, in the employment of the employer who "grants" the paid leave.

Again as I said at the top, first time commenting on something like this, so I may be just way off on what I'm commenting about, sorry

I wouldn't say you're way off, and in fact, I encourage your feedback. No need to apologize. Your first concern is well-placed, I think. Although I'm not sure about it in the case that the compensation would be a pay cut, but that can be settled in the next draft. For your second concern. I don't exactly see a problem with having the duration of the illness be the duration of the leave. For your third concern...eh. Maybe. We'll see.

[Faerixe]

There should be paid leave with the welcoming of a new child. Children need lots of love and attention when they are born. It makes for better well adjusted humans later in life. Don't we want better citizens in our nation? Hardworking and responsible citizens??

[Tinhampton]

"Paid Leave Act" was defeated 9,031 votes to 5,795. (39.09% support)

[Polomon Islands]

"Paid Leave Act" was defeated 9,031 votes to 5,795. (39.09% support)

Oh well.