NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Paid Leave Act: II Aid II Welfare

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Paid Leave Act: II Aid II Welfare

Postby Minskiev » Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:04 am

Let's try one more time, shall we? (Yes, the name is a Fast and Furious 2 joke)

The World Assembly,

Firmly believing that economic growth follows the economic security of workers,

Hoping to achieve both economic security and a healthy, growing populace,

Understanding that one such way to achieve these enviable ideals is through the secure introduction of paid leave and job security for workers everywhere, allowing those workers to care better for themselves and their loved ones, although remaining cautious against excessively interfering with employers' operations,

Hereby:

  1. Defines for this resolution:
    1. "job security" as the assurance that one will likely remain in their job or a job with a similar salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and work location now and for the foreseeable future;
    2. a "worker" as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for another party as a part of said contract; and
    3. "paid leave" as time that a worker may not be required to work for their employers or any other party as part of their employment contract but during which that worker, and only that worker, still unconditionally receives from their employer the same pay, benefits, and job security as they would usually receive according to their contract.
  2. Mandates that member states provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions if their contract employs them for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum duration of the worker's respective condition, or at least sixteen weeks in total if the paid leave has no predefined duration:
    1. the duration of a worker's illness or injury for recovery;
    2. the duration of a family member or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual;
    3. two weeks per year for general purposes; and
    4. twelve weeks to care for a worker's new child, whether through childbirth, adoption, or foster care, should that child require such care from the worker.
  3. Forbids member states and employers from terminating employment, reducing benefits or compensation, or disciplining any worker because they filed for paid leave, and additionally forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,
  4. Declares that a worker must give sufficient notice to their employer if they foresee any future events, or an event has occurred where giving advance notice was implausible, if those events should induce a worker to obtain paid leave,
  5. Allows any employer of a worker filing for paid leave to require that worker's first member state of citizenship to provide any financial compensation throughout that paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
  6. Restates and clarifies that:
    1. paid leave under 2a and 2b is only applicable if:
      1. for 2a, the illness or injury directly compromises the worker's or their co-workers' ability to work;
      2. for 2b, the illness or injury directly compromises the affected individual's ability to function;
      3. for both 2a and 2b, the illness or injury is reversible; if not, the leave ends after four weeks; and
      4. for 2b, no one of closer familial relations can care for that family member.
    2. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker, even if it is within the twelve allotted weeks; and
    3. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:54 pm, edited 26 times in total.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9358
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:13 am

Let me compare the original PLA ("Original") and the above redraft ("Redraft") side-by-side... all of the phrases in blue appear in both versions.
OriginalRedraft
The World Assembly,

Accepting that economic growth follows the economic security of workers,

Hoping to both achieve economic security as well as a healthy, growing populace,

Understanding that one such way to achieve these ideals is through paid leave and securing jobs for workers for them to care for themselves and their loved ones, however careful not to excessively interfere with employers' operations,

Hereby:


  1. Defines for this resolution:
    1. economic security as having a stable income or resources to sufficiently support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future;
    2. a worker as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for or services another party as a part of said contract; and
    3. paid leave as time which an employer must not require a worker to work for or service another party per their employment contract, during which the worker receives from their employer:
      1. compensation sufficient to financially support themselves and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security;
      2. all non-income benefits that the worker would normally receive that could take away economic security from a worker without it; and
      3. the right to the same job or a job with a similar salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and work location, once the worker returns from paid leave, should the employer be able to provide it without bankrupting themselves.
  2. Mandates that member states provide workers requesting paid leave a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions:
    1. the duration of the worker's illness or injury to recover if the illness or injury directly compromises the worker's or their co-workers' ability to work, unless it is an irreversible illness or injury, in which case the minimum would be four weeks;
    2. the duration of the worker's spouse's, child's, parent's, grandparent's, or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual if the illness or injury directly compromises their ability to function, unless it is an irreversible illness or injury, in which case the minimum would be six weeks, should the affected individual require such care from the worker;
    3. two weeks per year for general purposes; and
    4. twelve weeks to care for the worker's new child, whether from childbirth, adoption, or placement of the new child in foster care, should that child require such care from the worker.
  3. Forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker, reducing the benefits or compensation of a worker, or disciplining a worker with the reason being the worker filed for paid leave, and forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,
  4. Declares that workers must alert their employers as soon as they are aware of any foreseeable events or conditions that may induce the worker to file for paid leave in the future,
  5. Restates and clarifies that:
    1. member states and employers may not impose conditions for granting paid leave;
    2. the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum paid leave duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;
    3. only the filing worker is granted paid leave;
    4. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker if it is within the twelve weeks;
    5. member states pay the financial compensation outlined in 1ci unless it is general-purposes paid leave, in which case the filing worker's employer pays, however, employers of workers filing for general-purposes paid leave may force the workers' member states to provide the financial compensation throughout the paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
    6. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.
The World Assembly,

Accepting that economic growth follows the economic security of workers,

Hoping to both achieve economic security as well as a healthy, growing populace,

Understanding that one such way to achieve these ideals is through paid leave and securing jobs for workers for them to care for themselves and their loved ones, however careful not to excessively interfere with employers' operations,

Hereby:


  1. Defines for this resolution:
    1. economic security as having a stable income or resources to sufficiently support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future;
    2. a worker as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for or services another party as a part of said contract; and
    3. paid leave as time which an employer must not require a worker to work for or service another party per their employment contract, during which the worker receives from their employer:
      1. compensation sufficient to financially support the worker and their dependents if the receiving worker requires it for economic security; however, the compensation must not be more than the worker would normally receive throughout the paid leave;
      2. all non-income benefits that the worker would normally receive that could take away economic security from a worker without it; and
      3. the right to the same job or a job with a similar salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and work location, once the worker returns from paid leave, should the employer be able to provide it without losing economic security themselves, as overseen by the respective member state's government, the WACC, and the IAO.
  2. Mandates that member states provide workers requesting paid leave a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions:
    1. the duration of the worker's illness or injury to recover, or four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible if the illness or injury directly compromises their co-workers' ability to work or the worker's ability to function or work;
    2. the duration of the family member's or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual, or four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible if the illness or injury directly compromises their ability to function, should the affected individual require such care from the worker and should the family member have no one of closer familial relations to care for them;
    3. two weeks per year for general purposes; and
    4. twelve weeks to care for the worker's new child, whether from childbirth, adoption, or placement of the new child in foster care, should that child require such care from the worker.
  3. Forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker, reducing the benefits or compensation of a worker, or disciplining a worker with the reason being the worker filed for paid leave, and forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,
  4. Declares that workers must alert their employers as soon as they are aware of any foreseeable events or conditions that may induce the worker to file for paid leave in the future,
  5. Restates and clarifies that:
    1. member states and employers may not impose conditions for granting paid leave;
    2. the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts of employment to work for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum paid leave duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;
    3. only the filing worker is granted paid leave;
    4. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker if it is within the twelve weeks;
    5. employers of workers filing for paid leave may force the workers' member states to provide the financial compensation throughout the paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
    6. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.

I'm not accusing you of plagiarism; that would be silly (and extremely incorrect). I am accusing you of producing a redraft that is a 5cm-by-5cm non-adhesive patch - never mind a sticking plaster - placed on top of the problems with your original. Here's a list of all the differences I've found:
  • Redraft forbids workers from being paid more during paid leave than while they are normally working - which is a good idea.
  • Redraft now requires that workers be moved to a similar job upon returning paid leave if their employer is able to do so without losing "economic security" (rather than falling into bankruptcy, as Original insisted). Redraft requires that the process of moving be overseen by "the respective member state's government, the WACC, and the IAO" - which is way too much firepower to be deploying for the benefit of a small class of workers.
  • The leave described in Redraft's 2a may now be claimed by workers for illnesses that affect their "ability to function," not just to work. This is okay, I guess.
  • Redraft's 2b now covers more family members and introduces some new conditions that sound okay on first glance (and are frankly incomprehensible on second glance).
  • Redraft makes businesses with more than fifty employees responsible for funding all paid leave, not just holiday pay, themselves. I have no strong opinion about this.
That's it.

As it stands, I would ordinarily support this, but my long-standing opposition to the power of the Regulatory Superstate (see Article 1c(iii)) - especially unexplained power :P - leads me to reluctant opposition.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Nov 07, 2021 9:34 am

To be frank Tin, I did copy and paste then fix some issues. I wasn't aware that that would be a problem. I'll reword it if need be.

1) I'll reword 1ci.

2) I'll reword 2b.

3) I'll also reword clause 4.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3216
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:05 am

Tinhampton wrote:As it stands, I would ordinarily support this, but my long-standing opposition to the power of the Regulatory Superstate (see Article 1c(iii)) - especially unexplained power :P - leads me to reluctant opposition.


OOC: I have not yet compared this with the defeated proposal but a WA committee supervising employers to make sure they are actually bankrupt if they need to make someone who happened to be on holidays redundant is bad.

I think what you want here is a thorough rewrite of this section. The point is that someone using their entitlement to leave is not discriminated against for having taken that leave. Maybe say that instead and sidestep the big region deliberate and malicious misinterpretation?
Last edited by Bananaistan on Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:14 am

Bananaistan wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:As it stands, I would ordinarily support this, but my long-standing opposition to the power of the Regulatory Superstate (see Article 1c(iii)) - especially unexplained power :P - leads me to reluctant opposition.


OOC: I have not yet compared this with the defeated proposal but a WA committee supervising employers to make sure they are actually bankrupt if they need to make someone who happened to be on holidays redundant is bad.

I think what you want here is a thorough rewrite of this section. The point is that someone using their entitlement to leave is not discriminated against for having taken that leave. Maybe say that instead and sidestep the big region deliberate and malicious misinterpretation?


Better?
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:16 pm

Bump.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Xanthorrhoea
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Aug 22, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthorrhoea » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:24 am

I’m still confused about clause 1ci. What’s the point of the “compensation sufficient to financially support the worker… [etc]” part of the definition? As pointed out by Fire Islands on the last attempt, why not just mandate that employers pay employees as if they worked their scheduled or contracted hours during the leave period? That’s the conventional approach IRL, and seems far simpler and less prone to loopholes than your current method.

Also bumping this after a day of inactivity is rather cheeky. Give it time to breathe.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:48 am

Xanthorrhoea wrote:I’m still confused about clause 1ci. What’s the point of the “compensation sufficient to financially support the worker… [etc]” part of the definition? As pointed out by Fire Islands on the last attempt, why not just mandate that employers pay employees as if they worked their scheduled or contracted hours during the leave period? That’s the conventional approach IRL, and seems far simpler and less prone to loopholes than your current method.

Also bumping this after a day of inactivity is rather cheeky. Give it time to breathe.


Yeah, I was looking for comment about that area. Alright, I’ll make it simple. And 24 hours is an allowed bump time.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Xanthorrhoea
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Aug 22, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthorrhoea » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:52 am

Minskiev wrote:And 24 hours is an allowed bump time.

That would be while I called it cheeky, not illegal. :)

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Wed Nov 10, 2021 8:52 pm

Another bump.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13134
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Outer Sparta » Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:12 pm

Minskiev wrote:Another bump.

And yet you did another 24 hour bump. Not everyone has the time to thoroughly look over a draft immediately.

I would hold off on any submission especially considering you only spent three days on a second attempt that.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2457
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:22 pm

Outer Sparta wrote:
Minskiev wrote:Another bump.

And yet you did another 24 hour bump. Not everyone has the time to thoroughly look over a draft immediately.

I would hold off on any submission especially considering you only spent three days on a second attempt that.

Nah.... I say submit it now and let the chips fall where they may. Obviously if it has to be bumped up the front page a whole three spots once every 24 hours, it must be totally ready...
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 192
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Thousand Branches » Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:37 pm

Good evening.

The Nectarine Coalition for the Universal Betterment of Penmanship (or NCUBP) wishes to extend to the author an index of edits to improve the legibility and word choice of an altogether well put together piece of legislation. Here follows:



Minskiev wrote:Accepting that economic growth follows the economic security of workers,

Why “accepting”? The use of accepting mimics a sort of begrudging concession. If you believe in the usefulness of this resolution, you need a much stronger word to begin the whole piece. You need a strong, dogged belief and this word simply does not convey that.

Minskiev wrote:Hoping to both achieve economic security as well as a healthy, growing populace,

“both achieve” should be “achieve both”.

“as well as a” should be “and a”

Minskiev wrote:Understanding that one such way to achieve these ideals is through paid leave and securing jobs for workers for them to care for themselves and their loved ones, however careful not to excessively interfere with employers' operations,

The number of edits passed around our meeting was great enough that the NCUBP has unanimously agreed to offer a re-written version of this clause to the author:

“Understanding that one such way to achieve these enviable ideals is through the firm introduction of paid leave and job security for workers everywhere, allowing those workers to care better for themselves and their loved ones while remaining cautious against excessively interfering with employers' operations,”

Minskiev wrote:economic security as having a stable income or resources to sufficiently support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future;

We would recommend quotations around any words being defined, in this case for the term “economic security”.

“or resources” should be “or sufficient resources”. Additionally, the “sufficiently” before “support” can be removed.

“in the foreseeable future” should be “for the foreseeable future”.

Minskiev wrote:a worker as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for or services another party as a part of said contract; and

Same comments on quoting the defined word.

The use of “services another party” is confusing given the definition of “service” (as a verb), is simply to offer services for another. This phrase is both too vague and any necessary usage of it is covered by “works for”. Removal is heavily recommended.

Our more radical members in fact believe everything after “contract of employment” is utterly unnecessary. The implications of employment are that you are working for your employer and any further explanation is simply redundant.

Minskiev wrote:paid leave as time which an employer must not require a worker to work for or service another party per their employment contract, during which the worker receives from their employer:
  1. pay at the rate of the worker’s normal weekly income for each week of paid leave;
  2. all non-income benefits that the worker would normally receive that could take away economic security from a worker without it; and
  3. the right to not be discriminated against for having taken paid leave when it comes to jobs; this includes the right to the same job or a job with a similar salary, field of work, necessary skill set, set of employment benefits, work schedule, and work location, once the worker returns from paid leave.

Same comments on quoting the defined word.

Once again, the NCUBP has voted unanimously to offer a rewrite:

(“paid leave” as time that an employee may not be required to work for their employers or any other party as part of their employment contract but during which that employee still receives from their employer the same pay, benefits, and job security as they would usually receive according to their contract.)

This definition would remove the necessity for the long and confusing bullet points while keeping in mind the same points in the former definition.

Minskiev wrote:Mandates that member states provide workers requesting paid leave a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions:

“requesting paid leave” is unnecessary and would be better off removed.

Minskiev wrote:the duration of the worker's illness or injury to recover, or four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible if the illness or injury directly compromises their co-workers' ability to work or the worker's ability to function or work;

Another full rewrite has been agreed to:

“the duration of a worker's illness or injury for recovery, or instead four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible and/or directly compromises their or their co-workers' ability to work;”

Minskiev wrote:the duration of the family member's or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual if the illness or injury directly compromises their ability to function, should the affected individual require such care from the worker and in the former's case, should the family member have no one of closer familial relations that can care for them;

“the family member’s” should be “a family member”.

“if the illness” should be “if that illness”.

The NCUBP would also like to request an explanation of the second half of this clause (everything after “former’s case”) as it is incredibly confusing and even our distinguished editors were unclear what to do with it.

Minskiev wrote:twelve weeks to care for the worker's new child, whether from childbirth, adoption, or placement of the new child in foster care, should that child require such care from the worker.

Again, “the worker’s” should be “a worker’s”.

As a personal note from one of our editors: “If a child is placed in foster care, that would mean they gave away the baby, not kept it. Why would they be taking care of a baby given away to foster care? Perhaps this should simply be clarified because at the moment it is very confusing.”

Minskiev wrote:Forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker, reducing the benefits or compensation of a worker, or disciplining a worker with the reason being the worker filed for paid leave, and forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,

Another almost unanimous rewrite, mostly organizational:

“Forbids employers from terminating employment, reducing benefits/ compensation, or disciplining any worker because they filed for paid leave, and additionally forbids employers from terminating the employment of a worker while they are on paid leave,”

Minskiev wrote:Declares a worker must give a notice to their employer if they foresee any future events, or there has been any event where giving advance notice was implausible, which the worker shall rely on to obtain paid leave,

“Declares” —> “Declares that”

“a notice” —> “sufficient notice”

“there has been an event” —> “an event has occurred”

“which the worker shall rely on to obtain paid leave” —> “if that worker should require paid leave.”

Minskiev wrote:the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts of employment to work for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum paid leave duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;

“of employment to work” —> “that employ them”

Delete “paid leave” in “paid leave duration”.

Minskiev wrote:paid leave under 2b ends after four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible as well as directly compromising to the affected individual's ability to function;

This was already addressed in 2b itself. Remove it altogether.

Minskiev wrote:paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker if it is within the twelve weeks;

“worker if it is within the twelve weeks;” —> “worker, even if it is within the twelve allotted weeks;”

Minskiev wrote:employers of workers filing for paid leave may force the workers' member states to provide the financial compensation throughout the paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and

Another unanimous rewrite:

“any employer of a worker filing for paid leave may require that workers' member state of citizenship to provide any financial compensation throughout that paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and”


This concludes the NCUBP index of edits for this resolution. We hope it will improve both this resolution and any further pieces of writing authored in the future by Minskiev. We wish you well,

Signed,

Aramantha Calendula, Head Nectarine and Presidential Assistant
You are frikkin beautiful!! Have the best day ever my friend!!
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Have an awesome day you! •○•

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9358
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Thu Nov 11, 2021 7:04 pm

Why is West Wirral listed as a co-author? The only differences between your current version and your original redraft from Sunday, which had no co-author, are:
  • a completely reworked Article 1c(i) requiring that workers always receive 100% of their expected weekly pay for each week of their paid leave
  • some changes to Article 1c(iii) that predate your addition of WW as co-author
  • a change to Article 4 allowing workers to retrospectively inform their employers of events requiring them to claim paid leave
  • a new Article 5d clarifying that "paid leave under 2b ends after four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible as well as directly compromising to the affected individual's ability to function" (and edits to Article 2b accordingly) - which was surely your intention in your Sunday draft anyway
:P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:31 pm

I won't quote it all, and I must have thanked you a billion times in DMs, but really, thank you Ara.

Tinhampton wrote:Why is West Wirral listed as a co-author? The only differences between your current version and your original redraft from Sunday, which had no co-author, are:
  • a completely reworked Article 1c(i) requiring that workers always receive 100% of their expected weekly pay for each week of their paid leave
  • some changes to Article 1c(iii) that predate your addition of WW as co-author
  • a change to Article 4 allowing workers to retrospectively inform their employers of events requiring them to claim paid leave
  • a new Article 5d clarifying that "paid leave under 2b ends after four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible as well as directly compromising to the affected individual's ability to function" (and edits to Article 2b accordingly) - which was surely your intention in your Sunday draft anyway
:P


Helping me with navigating UK employment law, really. Although it was a good deal just being a friend. Hm. I suppose I'll remove them, and maybe consider adding Ara, since they've really brought a load of sweeping changes.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Xanthorrhoea
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Aug 22, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthorrhoea » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:35 pm

Minskiev wrote:5. Restates and clarifies that:
  1. member states and employers may not impose conditions for granting paid leave;
  2. the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts that employ them for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;
  3. only the filing worker is granted paid leave;
  4. paid leave under 2a and 2b is only applicable if:
    1. for 2a, the illness or injury directly compromises the worker's or their co-workers' ability to work;
    2. for 2b, the illness or injury directly compromises the affected individual's ability to function; and
    3. for both 2a and 2b, the paid leave ends after four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible.
  5. paid leave under 2b for a family member's illness or injury is only applicable if no one of closer familial relations can care for that family member;
  6. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker, even if it is within the twelve allotted weeks;
  7. any employer of a worker filing for paid leave may require that worker's first member state of citizenship to provide any financial compensation throughout that paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
  8. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.


Might I recommend re-writing the proposal so that these clarifications are included within their relevant clauses? Having a list of clarifications tacked on the the end of the resolution looks sloppy and gives the impression that it’s so poorly written that it needs to be clarified. If you include these provisions organically into the body of the resolution, it will look much better.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:46 pm

Xanthorrhoea wrote:
Minskiev wrote:5. Restates and clarifies that:
  1. member states and employers may not impose conditions for granting paid leave;
  2. the paid leave minimums only apply to workers on contracts that employ them for at least twelve weeks longer than the minimum duration of the worker's respective condition for paid leave;
  3. only the filing worker is granted paid leave;
  4. paid leave under 2a and 2b is only applicable if:
    1. for 2a, the illness or injury directly compromises the worker's or their co-workers' ability to work;
    2. for 2b, the illness or injury directly compromises the affected individual's ability to function; and
    3. for both 2a and 2b, the paid leave ends after four weeks if the illness or injury is irreversible.
  5. paid leave under 2b for a family member's illness or injury is only applicable if no one of closer familial relations can care for that family member;
  6. paid leave under 2d ends when the worker's child no longer requires care from the worker, even if it is within the twelve allotted weeks;
  7. any employer of a worker filing for paid leave may require that worker's first member state of citizenship to provide any financial compensation throughout that paid leave if the employer employs less than fifty workers; and
  8. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.


Might I recommend re-writing the proposal so that these clarifications are included within their relevant clauses? Having a list of clarifications tacked on the the end of the resolution looks sloppy and gives the impression that it’s so poorly written that it needs to be clarified. If you include these provisions organically into the body of the resolution, it will look much better.

The clarifications are specifically to avoid poor, sloppy writing.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Xanthorrhoea
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Aug 22, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthorrhoea » Thu Nov 11, 2021 10:25 pm

Minskiev wrote:The clarifications are specifically to avoid mitigate poor, sloppy writing.

Adding the clarifications does not avoid sloppiness, it acts as a bandaid to fix it. It does not avoid poor writing, merely amends the writing to mitigate loopholes. There’s no point amending a resolution when you’re still writing it, far better to reword the text to avoid the loopholes in the first place.

For example, clauses 5b, d, e, f and h could all just be re-phrased slightly and included in clause 2. That way, the clarifications are located right where they’re relevant. Same for the other clarifications. 5a could be included in clause 3, and 5c could be merged into 1c.

5g should really be it’s own clause. It’s not a restatement or clarification, it’s the first and only time this topic is addressed in the proposal, and it’s hugely significant.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:23 pm

Xanthorrhoea wrote:
Minskiev wrote:The clarifications are specifically to avoid mitigate poor, sloppy writing.

Adding the clarifications does not avoid sloppiness, it acts as a bandaid to fix it. It does not avoid poor writing, merely amends the writing to mitigate loopholes. There’s no point amending a resolution when you’re still writing it, far better to reword the text to avoid the loopholes in the first place.

For example, clauses 5b, d, e, f and h could all just be re-phrased slightly and included in clause 2. That way, the clarifications are located right where they’re relevant. Same for the other clarifications. 5a could be included in clause 3, and 5c could be merged into 1c.

5g should really be it’s own clause. It’s not a restatement or clarification, it’s the first and only time this topic is addressed in the proposal, and it’s hugely significant.


Alright, I cleaned it up (from around 9 clarifications to technically 3)
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:08 pm

Alright, I'm happy with this. Will be submitting in the morning (12 or so hours from now) if there are no further concerns.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21789
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:27 pm

Mandates that member states provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions

What does this mean? This doesn't translate to English for me. The bullets that follow don't belong to any sentence, either. They just exist.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Sun Nov 14, 2021 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Mandates that member states provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions

What does this mean? This doesn't translate to English for me. The bullets that follow don't belong to any sentence, either. They just exist.

Member states must provide workers a minimum of the following durations or any higher subsequent limits of paid leave for their respective conditions. I should've worded it better.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21789
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:03 pm

Minskiev wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:
Mandates that member states provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave or any higher limits that the World Assembly may subsequently set for their respective conditions

What does this mean? This doesn't translate to English for me. The bullets that follow don't belong to any sentence, either. They just exist.

Member states must provide workers a minimum of the following durations or any higher subsequent limits of paid leave for their respective conditions. I should've worded it better.

I don't know what it means to provide workers a limit on their paid leave. Is it really "providing" them anything to set a maximum on the duration of their paid leave?
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8059
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:04 pm

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

Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1815
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:06 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Minskiev wrote:Member states must provide workers a minimum of the following durations or any higher subsequent limits of paid leave for their respective conditions. I should've worded it better.

I don't know what it means to provide workers a limit on their paid leave. Is it really "providing" them anything to set a maximum on the duration of their paid leave?


Limits aren’t necessarily maximums.
2x Officer of the Rejected Realms
Former Speaker of the Rejected Realms
Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Rejected Times
Author of GA#565, GA#581, and SC#362


WA Ambassador: Wallace Russell
My views DO represent my regions in ALL capacities!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gonswanza, Rick Perry

Advertisement

Remove ads