Page 1 of 3

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:25 pm
by Minskiev
Proposal

The World Assembly,

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,

Remaining cautious against excessively interfering with employers' operations, however, 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. ”economic security” as having the stable income or resources to sufficiently financially support oneself and one's dependents now and in the foreseeable future, (including for one to at least afford, for oneself and one's dependents, housing, food, water, clothing, sanitation, relevant utilities, and relevant transportation that are all healthy, safe, and allow one to be able to work);
    3. a “worker” as any individual bound by a contract of employment who works for another party as a part of said contract; and
    4. ”paid leave” as time that a worker must not be required to work for their employer 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 states have employers 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 sixteen weeks:
    1. the duration of a worker's illness or injury for recovery, but only up to eight weeks;
    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;
    3. two weeks per year for general purposes; and
    4. seventy-two weeks shared between each parent to care for a worker's new child, whether through childbirth, adoption, or foster care, should that child require care generally (potential caretakers are irrelevant); this does not need to be consecutive, however, if there is a single parent that takes care of their child who is taking paid leave, they are allotted ninety-six weeks, this seventy-two weeks must be used before their child is the equivalent of three years in development, and single parents must use their ninety-six weeks before their child is the equivalent of four years in development.
  3. Forbids member states and employers from terminating employment, reducing benefits or compensation, disciplining, penalizing, or otherwise retaliating against any worker because they filed for paid leave, because they notified their employer of events that may induce them to file for paid leave, because of any effects of their paid leave on the employer, or because 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, that should induce that worker to obtain paid leave,
  5. Allows any employer of a worker filing for paid leave to require any member state that worker is working in to provide (Clause 2 notwithstanding), throughout that paid leave, full financial compensation 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,
  6. Permits employers that pay into member state social insurance funds to claim its benefits and access these funds to provide financial compensation for paid leave if those employers did not pay into the social insurance funds with worker wages or tips to use for paid leave financial compensation, regardless of those employers’ sizes, and
  7. Restates and clarifies that:
    1. paid leave under 2a and 2b is only applicable if:
      1. for 2a, the illness or injury directly compromises that worker's or their co-workers' health or ability to work;
      2. for 2b, the illness or injury directly compromises the affected individual's health or ability to care for themselves or their dependents;
      3. for both 2a and 2b, the illness or injury is curable or manageable with treatment, a doctor's prescription, or natural recovery; if not, the leave ends after eight weeks; and
      4. for 2b, no one of closer familial relations can and will 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;
    3. any member state that a worker on a contract for less than sixteen weeks that files for paid leave is working in must provide a minimum of the respective minimum paid leave time for that worker's condition of paid leave; and
    4. employers and member states may increase the duration of paid leave beyond the minimums listed in this resolution.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:26 pm
by Minskiev
Placeholder

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:29 pm
by Apatosaurus
No.

If you think Tinhampton should improve her proposal, give suggestions there, rather than sniping her proposal.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:35 pm
by Quebecshire
Apatosaurus wrote:No.

If you think Tinhampton should improve her proposal, give suggestions there, rather than sniping her proposal.

OOC: If walrus' proposal is different enough to the extent that it would not be plagiarism to use/submit, then it is not "sniping", rather proposing an alternative. I admit I am not super versed in GA norms, but I don't see the problem in producing alternatives to something someone perceives as insufficient.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:37 pm
by Untecna
Quebecshire wrote:
Apatosaurus wrote:No.

If you think Tinhampton should improve her proposal, give suggestions there, rather than sniping her proposal.

OOC: If walrus' proposal is different enough to the extent that it would not be plagiarism to use/submit, then it is not "sniping", rather proposing an alternative. I admit I am not super versed in GA norms, but I don't see the problem in producing alternatives to something someone perceives as insufficient.

It is sniping. Tinhampton is already covering it, and if that fails, an alternative can be made. There's no reason for this to exist right now though.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:38 pm
by Minskiev
Apatosaurus wrote:No.

If you think Tinhampton should improve her proposal, give suggestions there, rather than sniping her proposal.

Nothing I can do will get Tin to write law that I will fully, 100% agree with. Thus, I wrote such law myself. And I think it’s my right to wish to improve legislation that I’ve written.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:40 pm
by Minskiev
Untecna wrote:
Quebecshire wrote:OOC: If walrus' proposal is different enough to the extent that it would not be plagiarism to use/submit, then it is not "sniping", rather proposing an alternative. I admit I am not super versed in GA norms, but I don't see the problem in producing alternatives to something someone perceives as insufficient.

It is sniping. Tinhampton is already covering it, and if that fails, an alternative can be made. There's no reason for this to exist right now though.

I want it to pass, however in its current state I cannot say I will throw 100% of my support behind it and do everything reasonable in my power to have it pass.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:42 pm
by Untecna
Minskiev wrote:
Apatosaurus wrote:No.

If you think Tinhampton should improve her proposal, give suggestions there, rather than sniping her proposal.

Nothing I can do will get Tin to write law that I will fully, 100% agree with. Thus, I wrote such law myself. And I think it’s my right to wish to improve legislation that I’ve written.

If they won't make the changes, there's probably a good reason for it. You don't need to make a proposal again just because you want it in the image of you.
Minskiev wrote:
Untecna wrote:It is sniping. Tinhampton is already covering it, and if that fails, an alternative can be made. There's no reason for this to exist right now though.

I want it to pass, however in its current state I cannot say I will throw 100% of my support behind it and do everything reasonable in my power to have it pass.

You are not the only factor in how or if a proposal passes.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:46 pm
by Minskiev
Untecna wrote:If they won't make the changes, there's probably a good reason for it. You don't need to make a proposal again just because you want it in the image of you.

It’s nonetheless bad reason for me and I wouldn’t necessarily support it as much as I support my own draft.

This isn’t to say everyone should snipe ideas - I’m the author of the target and it is my duty to ensure the legislation I write is as good as can be. If I were not the author of the target, I would be acting with malicious intent.
You are not the only factor in how or if a proposal passes.

Of course not, but I can try.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:51 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
It is not "sniping" or anything to draft a proposal when you disagree with someone. It's like if some conservative player were drafting a proposal to ban assisted suicide after I repeal Assisted Suicide Act and the people here started complaining about sniping when someone else wants to make it legal everywhere.

It isn't even sniping to pick up an idea and execute it similarly. Competition between drafts is healthy; it forces people to draft better and more rapidly, creating meaningful activity. Let's not pretend that politics and elbowing isn't part of the game.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:50 am
by Bananaistan
Full pay for everyone is still a bad idea. Member states should not be required to cough up potentially multiples of the average wage when some financially secure executive is out sick. 100% pay is extremely uncommon IRL.

The outright requirement that employees on sick leave can never be dismissed is discriminatory to other employees.

The outright requirement that employees on any type of paid leave can never be dismissed does not take account of business failures or restructuring to prevent failure.

The job security provisions are too weak as regards employees on normal annual leave. Unless the business fails, the employee should be returned to the exact same job after their short two weeks off.

In section 2d. No child actually requires care from a parent - any adult or older child can reasonably care for a child when they need it. This is a loophole that bad employers and delinquent member states can exploit. Maternity and paternity leave for a new born or very young adoption/fostering should not be based on the child specifically requiring care from the parent.

What is a worker's member state of residency? EG if Jo Citizen, domiciled and ordinarily resident in member state A, takes a short term job of, say, one year in member state B which requires Jo to live in B. Which state is Jo's member state of residency? What about seasonal workers? Maybe one country has a social insurance scheme that the employer pays into and the other doesn't. Why should the state which didn't receive any tax income arising from the employment be paying for the leave requirements arising from the employment?

Also, and I'm sort of sick of saying this now. Holiday pay should be a cost for an employer. Everyone gets it unlike the other types of paid leave.

And the this cost section fails to take account of the likelihood that a member state already has some form of social insurance fund paid into by employers as cost of employing people. Employers who have paid into such funds should not excluded from claiming the benefits from them merely because of size. This is particularly badly stated as it bans such medium and large employers from accessing these funds. It also forces small employers to shoulder the burden of administering paid leave schemes and them claiming a rebate from the state. Member states should retain the option to have either format: member state pays or employer pays and claims rebate.

The common cold might not directly compromise an employee's ability to work. Yet it is everyone's interest that the infected employee stays at home.

What exactly is "ability to function"?

Like all the other efforts at paid leave we've seen so far, this is a one size fits nobody solution, and goes too far and nowhere near far enough at the same time.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:16 am
by Imperium Anglorum
I hope that the author takes what Banana says above well; it's a series of very good points.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:49 am
by Xanthorrhoea
Bananaistan wrote:Full pay for everyone is still a bad idea. Member states should not be required to cough up potentially multiples of the average wage when some financially secure executive is out sick. 100% pay is extremely uncommon IRL.


I’d like to disagree here (with a caveat). Firstly, I’m not sure where you live, but full pay for leave is very much the norm where I am. Having said that, I’m in a very wealthy country, so I’m honestly not sure of the situations elsewhere with fewer/different social supports.

Regardless, it is extremely important for a person and their family’s financial security that they have a predictable and consistent income. Otherwise, there is a risk of adding financial issues onto whatever made a person need to take leave in the first place. You don’t want to be choosing between paying bills and properly mourning your dead child. That’s inhumane.

Having said that, I agree that governments shouldn’t be on the hook for (all of) this. Businesses should. Bananaistan does have a good point about high paid employees, the government shouldn’t fund executives’ yachts. Surely a reasonable solution would be a limit on a government’s liability for pay. For example, it would be fairly straightforward to limit the leave pay funded by a government to a maximum of, for example, the median wage, with business left covering the rest. If a company can afford to overpay an executive, then they can afford to overpay their leave too.

This would help support small businesses (unless they’re prosperous enough to overpay their employees anyway), give income security to those who need it, and avoid the givernment needlessly paying CEOs millions of dollars. In practice, there are many more nuances to work out (especially how this might relate to social insurance funds), but I feel this approach would be better than forcing a government to fund full pay for everyone, or requiring a portion of pay, both of which have serious issues.

Personally I’d just remove clause 5 altogether and make businesses liable for paying their employees. However, seeing as this seems an unpopular approach, I think this is a fair compromise.

TLDR: full pay for all, but limited government liability.

Otherwise, the rest of what Bananaistan has to say is, as usual, well worth considering.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:02 pm
by Minskiev
Thank you, Banana and Xan, for your input. I highly appreciate it. Your concerns should have been addressed.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:01 am
by Old Hope
when paid leave under 2c ends, that worker must be returned to their same job;

That's a problem if the job no longer exists(e.g. factory destroyed by fire) or if other generally applicable and unforseen circumstances prevent it.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:21 pm
by Minskiev
Old Hope wrote:
when paid leave under 2c ends, that worker must be returned to their same job;

That's a problem if the job no longer exists(e.g. factory destroyed by fire) or if other generally applicable and unforseen circumstances prevent it.

Fixed?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 2:02 am
by Honeydewistania
Banana wrote:In section 2d. No child actually requires care from a parent - any adult or older child can reasonably care for a child when they need it. This is a loophole that bad employers and delinquent member states can exploit. Maternity and paternity leave for a new born or very young adoption/fostering should not be based on the child specifically requiring care from the parent.


This is a good point which I feel has not been adequately addressed in the draft. Also, please, hold off submitting the repeal. It's only 5 days.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 5:39 am
by Minskiev
Honeydewistania wrote:
Banana wrote:In section 2d. No child actually requires care from a parent - any adult or older child can reasonably care for a child when they need it. This is a loophole that bad employers and delinquent member states can exploit. Maternity and paternity leave for a new born or very young adoption/fostering should not be based on the child specifically requiring care from the parent.


This is a good point which I feel has not been adequately addressed in the draft. Also, please, hold off submitting the repeal. It's only 5 days.

Removed one of the clarifications about 2d ending if the child stopped needing care from the worker.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:40 pm
by Minskiev
Bump

PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:15 pm
by Minskiev
Goodness, 3rd page. Bump, considering it'll have to come to vote soon.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:56 am
by Fhaengshia
Minskiev wrote:
Wishing for a final solution…


Please consider different wording on this part please.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2021 6:21 am
by Honeydewistania
Fhaengshia wrote:
Minskiev wrote:
Wishing for a final solution…


Please consider different wording on this part please.

Omg lol. Yeah this definitely should be reworded

PostPosted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 6:23 am
by Minskiev
Oop lol

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:09 am
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles
I see at lease a few places for potential improvement in the current draft. But from what I've seen I doubt you'll be receptive to my critique. So rather than waste a bunch of time, I'll start by pointing out just one issue, and we'll see if any productive dialogue develops. Go from there.

Minskiev wrote:2. Mandates that member states provide workers a minimum of the following durations of paid leave...:
a. the duration of a worker's illness or injury for recovery;
b. the duration of a family member or dependent's illness or injury to care for the affected individual;

...

7. Restates and clarifies that... paid leave under 2a and 2b is only applicable if:... for both 2a and 2b, the illness or injury is reversible; if not, the leave ends after four weeks

There are many conditions which are reversible, but which require tremendous recovery time. ACL injuries typically take 9 months to a year to fully heal. Conditions such as Guillain-Barre disease (where the immune system attacks the nervous system) sometimes resolve within 6 to 12 months but can take up to three years for full recovery. It strikes me as unreasonable to require paying and maintaining benefits for "the duration" of such an illness. Meanwhile, employers can cut off anyone with dementia after four weeks.

Anyway, consider whether paid leave should be provided for the duration of the illness or for four weeks, whichever is shorter. This, incidentally, gets you out of the business of discriminating against individuals who cannot be fully cured while granting absurd benefits to some who can be cured but only after tremendous recovery periods.

Also, a minor quibble here is the use of the word "reversible." Given what others are doing in other legislation recently, I suggest "curable or manageable with treatment".

Minskiev wrote:Oop lol

I find referencing a notorious Nazi euphemism for exterminating Jews less funny than some others here, but in any case thank you for being so quick to remove it.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2021 2:24 pm
by Minskiev
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:feedback

I fully agree with your feedback, actually.