[DEFEATED] Paid Leave Act II (oh god theres another one)

[Apatosaurus]

Repeal

Most of the concerns with the proposal should have been addressed. If you have any more, do let me know.

The World Assembly,

Sick of all this paid leave legislation, to the point where filing for sick leave may be on the horizon,

Wishing for a lasting solution, and presenting this resolution, re: solution,

Highly regarding the economic security of workers, believing that it is part of the backbone of a well-functioning economy,

Realizing that the economic security of workers goes hand in hand with 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, but

Remaining cautious against excessively interfering with employers' operations, however, hereby: hereby enacts the following.

1. Defines, for In this resolution:
   
   1. ”job security” as is 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. ”economic security” as is having the stable income or resources to sufficiently support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future;
   3. a “worker” as is any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for another party as a part of said contract; and
   4. ”paid leave” as is time that a worker must 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 receives from their employer the same non-income benefits and job security as they would usually receive according to their contract. The employer may choose to pay that worker either the amount for them to hold economic security or that worker's regular pay, however.
2. Mandates that member Member states must provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave (or any higher minimums 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: Why "twelve weeks"and "sixteen weeks"?
   
   1. the duration of a worker's illness or injury for recovery, but only up to eight weeks; What if "up to eight weeks" is not enough?
   2. the duration of a family member or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual, but only up to eight weeks; Same as above
   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 What is "require such care"? Require such care according to whom? Also the issue I have pointed out time and time again (and have been ignored on) about the "twelve weeks" not being compatible with other species..
3. Forbids member Member states and employers from terminating may not terminate employment, reducing reduce benefits or compensation, or disciplining punish any worker because they filed for paid leave, because they notified their employer of events that may induce them to file for paid leave, or because they are on paid leave, paid leave.
4. Declares that a 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 induce that worker to obtain paid leave, leave. Wording changes aside, the whole way this reads is kind of confusing? It would be better off with a complete rewrite.
5. Allows any An employer of a worker filing for paid leave to may require the member state the worker is working in, and any A member state that a worker filing for paid leave is working in, to may also provide, throughout that paid leave, any financial compensation up to that member state's median wage (except for general-purposes leave, where the employer pays it all) if the employer employs less than fifty workers, with one percent less coverage of financial compensation for every additional worker employed over fifty, fifty. Also, this still suffers from the same issue you repealed Paid Leave Act for, in that it encourages employers to employ less than 50 workers.
6. Permits employers Employers that pay into member state social insurance funds to may claim its benefits and access these funds to provide financial compensation when their workers are on paid leave, regardless of those employers’ sizes, and .
7. Restates and clarifies that: This resolution clarifies the following:
   
   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' health or ability to work;
      2. for 2b, the illness or injury directly compromises the affected individual's ability to care for themselves;
      3. for both 2a and 2b, the illness or injury is curable or manageable with treatment; 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. when paid leave under 2c ends, that worker must be returned to their exact same job if that job still exists, filled or unfilled; and
   3. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.

[Minskiev]

snip

1) Twelve weeks longer than the minimum is so that paid leave is not more than 50% of an employment contract, and sixteen weeks total is when the paid leave is, say, 2a, and has no set minimum duration. Then I just use a default of four weeks (which is also used throughout the proposal). 12 + 4 = 16.
2) Eight weeks is stretching it. Most bone fractures recover in eight weeks. I think it would be unreasonable to put it any higher.
3) I'll do a small rewrite.
4) But far less meaningfully. There is a big difference from 49 to 50 workers coming with 0% to 100% coverage and 49 to 50 workers coming with 0% to 1% coverage.

[Apatosaurus]

snip

1) Twelve weeks longer than the minimum is so that paid leave is not more than 50% of an employment contract, and sixteen weeks total is when the paid leave is, say, 2a, and has no set minimum duration. Then I just use a default of four weeks (which is also used throughout the proposal). 12 + 4 = 16.

Ah ok. I was confused.

2) Eight weeks is stretching it. Most bone fractures recover in eight weeks. I think it would be unreasonable to put it any higher.

Emphasis on "most".

4) But far less meaningfully. There is a big difference from 49 to 50 workers coming with 0% to 100% coverage and 49 to 50 workers coming with 0% to 1% coverage.

But still does.

[Minskiev]

Emphasis on "most".

Covering most is reasonable. Sacrificing all business to cover fringe cases is not reasonable.

4) But far less meaningfully. There is a big difference from 49 to 50 workers coming with 0% to 100% coverage and 49 to 50 workers coming with 0% to 1% coverage.

But still does.

Doesn't matter.

[Apatosaurus]

Emphasis on "most".

Covering most is reasonable. Sacrificing all business to cover fringe cases is not reasonable.

Uh, yeah, people's health and well-being is far more important than the wants of corporations.

[Minskiev]

Covering most is reasonable. Sacrificing all business to cover fringe cases is not reasonable.

Uh, yeah, people's health and well-being is far more important than the wants of corporations.

Let's flip that coin. You run a quaint little bakery to get the money to pay for your mom's hospital bills. You're running out of money, though, as the hospital charges more and more and COVID has fewer and fewer people buying from you. One worker slips and breaks their tibia. How unreasonable is it to cap it at 8 weeks instead of paying the average 20 weeks for tibia fractures?

[Doge Land]

Covering most is reasonable. Sacrificing all business to cover fringe cases is not reasonable.

Uh, yeah, people's health and well-being is far more important than the wants of corporations.

You have to find that equilibrium between the needs of the people and the needs of the businesses. Some businesses can't afford that kind of stuff. A massive mega-corporation that has thousands of employees wouldn't be bothered if one of their employees got out on sick leave for dozens of weeks, however a small chain of convenience stores (like 3-4 stores owned) would be devastated if one of their employees got out on sick leave for weeks, especially during covid.

Just my two cents, really. This proposal seems solid. Will probably vote for.

[Apatosaurus]

Uh, yeah, people's health and well-being is far more important than the wants of corporations.

Let's flip that coin. You run a quaint little bakery to get the money to pay for your mom's hospital bills. You're running out of money, though, as the hospital charges more and more and COVID has fewer and fewer people buying from you. One worker slips and breaks their tibia. How unreasonable is it to cap it at 8 weeks instead of paying the average 20 weeks for tibia fractures?

Aside from something about GAR#582, it is unreasonable when you consider that if there is less than 100 workers in said "quaint little bakery" the government would pay most of said paid leave as per Clause 5, and if there are more, then one out of 100 employees not being able to work is not going to be an end-of-the-world situation.
EDIT:

But still does.

Doesn't matter.

True, I suppose.

[Minskiev]

if there is less than 100 workers in said "quaint little bakery" the government would pay most of said paid leave as per Clause 5

Doesn't really matter.

one out of 100 employees not being able to work is not going to be an end-of-the-world situation.

It would be if it's someone critical.

[Minskiev]

Alright, last calling.

[Unified Democratic Europe]

Anyone who opposes this resolution will be labeled a "polar bear". Just sayin'.

[Confederation of South Africa]

I do not get it. Whoever wrote the proposal says it is sick of people taking said leaves. But then it is proposed to keep it?

[Minskiev]

I do not get it. Whoever wrote the proposal says it is sick of people taking said leaves. But then it is proposed to keep it?

No, it's sick of all the legislation (referring to the repeal of GA#527, replacement, and repeal of that replacement, to be then followed up with this replacement of the repealed replacement of the repealed GA#527).

[Unified Democratic Europe]

I do not get it. Whoever wrote the proposal says it is sick of people taking said leaves. But then it is proposed to keep it?

No, it's sick of all the legislation (referring to the repeal of GA#527, replacement, and repeal of that replacement, to be then followed up with this replacement of the repealed replacement of the repealed GA#527).

I just hope that this legislation passes, and then gets repealed two resolutions later. It would at least give us a good laugh.

[Minskiev]

No, it's sick of all the legislation (referring to the repeal of GA#527, replacement, and repeal of that replacement, to be then followed up with this replacement of the repealed replacement of the repealed GA#527).

I just hope that this legislation passes, and then gets repealed two resolutions later. It would at least give us a good laugh.

If people call me a badgehunter now, I wonder what the accusations would be then

[Apatosaurus]

I just hope that this legislation passes, and then gets repealed two resolutions later. It would at least give us a good laugh.

;)

If people call me a badgehunter now, I wonder what the accusations would be then :lol:

I will call you a badge-grabber. :P

[Outer Sparta]

I do not get it. Whoever wrote the proposal says it is sick of people taking said leaves. But then it is proposed to keep it?

No, it's sick of all the legislation (referring to the repeal of GA#527, replacement, and repeal of that replacement, to be then followed up with this replacement of the repealed replacement of the repealed GA#527).

What if this gets repealed? Will you craft another replacement?

[Minskiev]

No, it's sick of all the legislation (referring to the repeal of GA#527, replacement, and repeal of that replacement, to be then followed up with this replacement of the repealed replacement of the repealed GA#527).

What if this gets repealed? Will you craft another replacement?

Probably not, that seems a little egregious.

[Outer Sparta]

What if this gets repealed? Will you craft another replacement?

Probably not, that seems a little egregious.

That would prove paid leave is a rather tough issue to nail in the WA if this one gets repealed.

[Bears Armed]

Anyone who opposes this resolution will be labeled a "polar bear". Just sayin'.

"And hwat, precisely, do you consider so innately "wrong" about polar bears?
"Hrrrmph..."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

2. Mandates that member states provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave (or any higher minimums 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:

Maybe I just don't understand what a "respective condition" is, but can't we just have a simple line on the length of employment before one becomes eligible for benefits? If I'm missing a fundamental concept here let me know. Otherwise please consider changing the wording highlighted above to "if their contract employs them for at least sixteen weeks."

FWIW, US Family and Medical Leave Act requires a flat 1,250 hours worked within the prior 12 months to qualify for similar benefits and protections. Or about 32 weeks of full-time work five days a week. Sixteen weeks is awful short but that may have been your political aim.

Allows any employer of a worker filing for paid leave to require any member state that worker is working in to provide, throughout that paid leave, any financial compensation up to that member state's median wage (except for general-purposes leave, where the employer pays it all) if the employer employs less than fifty workers, with one percent less coverage of financial compensation for every additional worker employed over forty-nine workers

Briefly, structuring state support this way means that the employers themselves will have to cover - at a minimum - the cost of providing these benefits to every employee minus an amount up to the state's median wage. The subsidies go down with bigger employers, so by the time you're employing 150 workers (a very large but not humongous company; such as a 50-bed community hospital) you're covering the cost entirely on your own. By design, it will hit even very tiny employers; the baker will need to consider this cost when they decide to hire an apprentice - assuming they plan to pay their apprentice greater than the median wage.

Which brings me to the next point. Your system will be much harsher on employers paying people substantially more than the median wage, because there's more to cover after the "median wage" subsidy has been applied. So, you are encouraging small employers who want to pay well to hold off hiring at all, and you are encouraging all employers to pay their workers less so they can get maximum benefit from the subsidies.

These are some negative features, in my view.

At a minimum, I would advise requiring the state to provide "full financial compensation" in place of what is highlighted bit above.

I can see now the merits of a titrating the benefit down once you hit an (admittedly arbitrary) cap. I think your "minus 1% per additional worker" formula is as good as any I can think up. 50 workers is a fine cap for when the greatest subsidies would end, and that must be a reasonable number somehow because lots of RL employment laws use it. (US Family Medical Leave Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regs, and the Affordable Care Act all use that standard somewhere, and they must have done some kind of social and economic research first, right?)

I could harangue you about other provisions but you seem ready to submit and, really, that's all I have of substance. Good luck.

[The Blazeland Administration]

Krinj

[Goobergunchia]

Krinj

Don't spam.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Using the phase-out is significantly better than using a discontinuous jump from subsidies to no subsidies. The discontinuity would produce significant bunching that caps firms at below 50 workers. Because most firms also have balanced growth paths rather than sudden and massive increases in output, firms capped below 50 also have less expansion potential. A phrase-out allows firms to transition their labour demand within the glide range smoothly.

[Minskiev]

Thank you for all the feedback everyone, and especially thanks to PRS for the finishing touches.