[ABANDONED] On Paid Leave

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: Since it seems very much unlikely that the at-vote resolution on paid leave will pass, I will be working on this as a resolution to finally end the nonsense on paid leave. I originally had this sitting around as a replacement for an repealace of that resolution, but it seems unlikely that it will pass anyway so there's no point in that. Feedback appreciated :)

Character count: 3400

Deputy Ambassador Sylvia Gravell. "In the absence of Ambrose Scott, I will be presenting this draft on behalf of the Apatosaurusian delegation. Many thanks to Ambrose Scott for crucial assistance in drafting this."

Whereas employees should be able to take paid leave fairly, let it be that:

1. For the purposes of this resolution, these terms are defined as follows:
   
   1. An “employee” is an individual who is employed by another individual or group in exchange for payment or any other form of return as part of a long-term employment contract.
      
      
   2. An “employer” is an individual or group for whom an employee works and who provides payment or any other form of return to that employee as part of a long-term employment contract.
      
      
   3. “Salary” is payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer as part of an employment contract.
      
      
   4. “Paid leave” is a period of time that an employee is not obligated to work for their employer, but receives a salary between the average salary of employees in that member state and the salary they would receive when working.
2. Employers must offer paid leave to their employees as follows:
   
   1. Employees may receive 8% of working days in which they are employed per year of extra paid leave for any reason, during which they must receive the same salary they would receive when working. Any remaining such leave shall be carried over into the next year.
      
      
   2. If an employee has become a parent (whether by adoption, foster care, or birth) to a child, they shall receive paid leave upon that employee's request of sufficient duration to:
      
      1. ensure that child receives adequate care from that employee, and
         
         
      2. allow for adequate emotional bonding between that employee and their child.
   3. If an employee or their significant other is in the reproductive process, and is thus unable to comfortably work without posing a risk to the health or safety of themselves, their significant other, or their future child, that employee may receive paid leave upon bona fide request by that employee, until neither that employee nor their significant other are in the reproductive process.
      
      
   4. If an employee is unable to comfortably or safely work due to injury, incapacity, or illness, they shall receive paid leave until:
      
      1. they have recovered from such illness, incapacity, or injury such that they are able to safely and comfortably return to work, or
         
         
      2. 6 months have passed and said employee is unlikely to be able to safely and comfortably return to work within the next 6 months.
   5. An employee may also receive paid leave upon their bona fide request if they have a relative who is ill, incapacitated or injured and who requires such care from that employee, until:
      
      1. that relative no longer requires such care from that employee, or
         
         
      2. 6 months have passed and said relative is unlikely to stop requiring such care from that employee within the next 6 months.
3. If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists due to reasons outside of that employer's control.
   
   
4. Employers and member states cannot directly or indirectly discriminate due to receipt of paid leave (past, present, or future). This includes but is not limited to tax discrimination, prosecution, fines, or termination of employment.
   
   
5. This resolution does not regulate who shall be responsible for funding paid leave, as long as said funding does not discriminate against past, present, or future recipients of paid leave. Member states and/or employers may also choose to provide higher amounts of paid leave than those mandated in Section 2 and/or provide paid leave in situations not covered by Section 2.

[Apatosaurus]

Whereas universal mandates on paid leave will help protect the rights of workers, let it be that:

1. For the purposes of this resolution these terms are defined as follows:
   
   1. An “employee” is an individual who is employed by another individual or group in exchange for payment or any other form of return, as part of an employment contract.
      
      
   2. An “employer” is an individual or group for whom an employee works, and who provides payment or any other form of return to that employee, as part of an employment contract.
      
      
   3. “Salary” is payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer, as part of an employment contract.
      
      
   4. “Paid leave” is a period of time that an employee is not obligated to work for their employer but still receives the same salary they would receive when working.
      
      
   5. The "reproductive process" is defined as the length of time from fertilisation to birth of a child of an organism.
2. Employers must offer paid leave to their employees as follows:
   
   1. If an employee or their significant other either is in the reproductive process or has become a parent (whether by adoption, foster care, or birth) of a child who requires care from that employee to receive adequate care during times in which that employee would otherwise be working, regardless of other potential caregivers that could provide such care, they shall be granted paid leave if requested bona fide by that employee, unless or until either:
      
      1. that child, if already born, no longer requires care from that employee to receive adequate care during times in which that employee would otherwise be working, regardless of other potential caregivers that could provide such care,
         
         
      2. neither that employee nor their significant other are in the reproductive process, except due to the birth of said child,
         
         
      3. that employee loses custody of said child, or
         
         
      4. such paid leave has extended (consecutively or non-consecutively) for a total length of the reproductive process in an average member of that species, excluding paid leave granted due to the birth, gaining of custody, or development of a different child.
   2. If an employee is unable to comfortably or safely work due to injury, incapacity, or illness, they shall receive paid leave until:
      
      1. they have recovered from such illness, incapacity, or injury, or
         
         
      2. 12 months have passed and said employee will not likely be able to safely and comfortably return to work in the foreseeable future.
   3. If the employee in question has a relative who is seriously ill, incapacitated or injured, and no other individual is adequately caring for them, the employee in question shall receive paid leave to care for that relative upon that employee's bona fide request, until:
      
      1. that relative no longer requires such care, or
         
         
      2. after twelve months, said relative is unlikely to stop requiring such care in the foreseeable future.
   4. Employees may receive 8% of working days per year of extra paid leave for any reason, excluding paid leave granted by other provisions of this resolution or national holidays. Any remaining such leave shall be carried over into the next year.
3. If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists.
   
   
4. Employers and member states cannot directly or indirectly discriminate due to receipt of paid leave (past, present, or future). This includes but is not limited to tax discrimination, government prosecution, fines, or termination of employment.
   
   
5. This resolution does not regulate who shall be responsible for funding paid leave, as long as said funding does not discriminate against past, present, or future recipients of paid leave. Member states and/or employers may also choose to provide higher amounts of paid leave than those mandated in this resolution.

Whereas paid leave is an important necessity to protect the rights of workers, let the following be enacted.

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. An “employee” is defined as an individual that is employed by another individual or group, in exchange for payment, wages, or any other form of return, as part of an employment contract.
   2. An “employer” is defined as an individual or group that provides a job to an employee and provides payment, wages, or any other form of return to that employee as part of an employment contract.
   3. “Salary” is defined as payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer, as part of an employment contract.
   4. “Paid leave” is defined as a length of time that an employee may not be obligated to work for their employer, but will still receive at least 75% of the salary they would receive if they were working.
2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:
   
   1. If an employee or their spouse either is in the reproductive process, is a parent of a child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human, or has gained custody in loco parentis of a child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human, then they shall be granted paid leave upon their request, unless or until either:
      
      1. the child in question is at or past the biological development equivalent of an average 3 year old human, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
      2. neither that employee nor their spouse are in the reproductive process, except due to the birth of said child,
      3. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave,
      4. that employee loses custody of said child, or
      5. such paid leave has extended for a total length of the reproductive process in an average member of that species, whether consecutively or non-consecutively.
   2. If the employee in question is seriously ill or injured such that they are unable to comfortably work or are likely to transmit their illness, if any, to other employees, then they shall be granted paid leave until they have recovered from said illness or injury such that they can comfortably work again and are unlikely to transmit said illness, if any, to other employees. This paid leave shall end if after twelve months said employee is unlikely to be able to work comfortably again in the foreseeable future.
   3. If the employee in question has a relative who is seriously ill or injured such that no other individual is adequately caring for them, the employee in question shall be granted paid leave until said relative no longer requires such care from any individual, if that employee requests it. This paid leave shall end if after twelve months said relative is unlikely to stop requiring such care in the foreseeable future.
   4. Employees may receive 8% of working days per year of extra paid leave for any reason, excluding paid leave granted by other provisions of this resolution or national holidays.
3. If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists. If that job no longer exists, then their paid leave shall be extended until either 3 months since the initial paid leave ended or the employee in question is employed in a new job, unless it is demonstrably proven that the employee in question is not making a bona fide effort to find a new job.
   
   
4. If an employer employs an individual in a job that would be held by an employee were they not on paid leave, then said individual shall be removed from that job when the paid leave of the employee that would be holding the job in question is over. The individual filling the job temporarily must be made fully aware of this in advance of being appointed to the job.
   
   
5. Employers or member-states are prohibited from discriminating in any way, directly or indirectly, against recipients (past or present) or potential recipients of paid leave. This includes but is not limited to tax discrimination or prosecution of recipients or potential recipients of paid leave by member states, as well as punishment, requirement to provide money, or termination of employment by their employers.
   
   
6. The following is clarified:
   
   1. This resolution does not regulate who shall be responsible for funding paid leave, as long as said funding does not discriminate against recipients or potential recipients of paid leave.
   2. Employers and/or member states may supply higher amounts of paid leave than those mandated in this resolution.
   3. 2av does not include paid leave granted due to the birth, adoption or development of a different child.

Whereas paid leave is necessary to protect worker's rights, let the following be enacted.

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. An “employee” is defined as an individual that is employed by another individual or group, in exchange for payment, wages, or any other form of return, as part of an employment contract.
   2. An “employer” is defined as an individual or group that provides a job to an employee and provides payment, wages, or any other form of return to that employee as part of an employment contract.
   3. “Salary” is defined as payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer, as part of an employment contract.
   4. “Paid leave” is defined as a length of time that an employee may not be obligated to work for their employer, but will still receive exactly the same salary as if they were working.
2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:
   
   1. Employees shall be permitted to receive paid leave upon request, for at least twice the length of time of giving birth for an average member of their species, if that employee or their spouse either is in the process of giving birth through pregnancy, egg-laying or any other methods of reproduction, or gained custody in loco parentis of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby. This paid leave shall end if either:
      
      1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
      2. that employee or their spouse is no longer in the process of giving birth except due to childbirth,
      3. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
      4. that employee loses custody of said child.
   2. If the employee in question is seriously ill or injured such that they are unable to comfortably work or are likely to transmit their illness, if any, to other employees, then they shall be granted paid leave until they have recovered from said illness or injury such that they can comfortably work again and are unlikely to transmit said illness, if any, to other employees. This paid leave shall end if after eighteen months said employee is unlikely to be able to work comfortably again in the foreseeable future.
   3. If the employee in question has a relative who is seriously ill or injured such that no other individual is adequately caring for them, the employee in question shall be granted paid leave until said relative no longer requires such care from any individual, if that employee requests it. This paid leave shall end if after eighteen months said relative is unlikely to stop requiring such care in the foreseeable future.
   4. If a personal tragedy occurs to an employee, including but not limited to the death of a close relative or a close relative becoming seriously ill, then said employee shall be granted 2 weeks of paid leave if said employee requests it.
   5. Employees may receive 8% of working days per year of extra paid leave for any reason, excluding paid leave granted by other provisions of this resolution or national holidays.
3. If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists. If that job no longer exists, then their paid leave shall be extended until either 3 months since the initial paid leave ended or the employee in question is employed in a new job, unless it is demonstrably proven that the employee in question is not making a bona fide effort to find a new job.
4. If an employer employs an individual in a job that would be held by an employee were they not on paid leave, then said individual shall be removed from that job when the paid leave of the employee that would be holding the job in question is over. The individual filling the job temporarily must be made fully aware of this in advance of being appointed to the job.
5. Employers or member-states are prohibited from discriminating in any way, directly or indirectly, against recipients (past or present) or potential recipients of paid leave. This includes but is not limited to tax discrimination or prosecution of recipients or potential recipients of paid leave by member states, as well as punishment, requirement to provide money, or termination of employment by their employers.
6. The following is clarified:
   
   1. This resolution does not regulate who shall be responsible for funding paid leave, as long as said funding does not discriminate against recipients or potential recipients of paid leave.
   2. Employers and/or member states may supply higher amounts of paid leave than those mandated in this resolution.

The World Assembly, convinced that paid leave is necessary to protect the rights of workers, enacts the following.

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. An “employee” is an individual that is employed by another individual or group in exchange for payment, wages, or any other form of return, as part of an employment contract.
   2. An “employer” is an individual or group that provides a job to an employee and provides payment, wages, or any other form of return to that employee as part of an employment contract.
   3. “Salary” is payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer as part of an employment contract.
   4. “Sustained economic loss” is a state where the total expenses paid are higher than the money gained by an employer, and where such a state is unlikely to end in the foreseeable future.
   5. “Paid leave” is defined as a length of time that an employee may not be obligated to work for their employer, but will still receive exactly the same salary as if they were working.
2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:
   
   1. If the employee in question becomes a parent, or has gained custody in loco parentis, of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby, then they shall be granted paid leave upon request by that employee since becoming parent of, or being granted custody in loco parentis of, said child, until either:
      
      1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
      2. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
      3. that employee loses custody of said child.
   2. If the employee in question is seriously ill or injured such that they are unable to comfortably work or are likely to transmit their illness, if any, to other employees, they shall be granted paid leave until they have recovered from said illness or injury such that they can comfortably work again and are unlikely to transmit said illness, if any, to other employees.
   3. If the employee in question has a relative who is seriously ill or injured such that no other individual is adequately caring for them, the employee in question shall be granted paid leave until said relative no longer requires such care from any individual, if that employee requests it.
   4. If a personal tragedy occurs to an employee, including but not limited to the death of a close relative or a close relative becoming seriously ill, then said employee shall be granted 2 weeks of paid leave if said employee requests it.
   5. If an employee is in the process of giving birth, whether through egg laying, pregnancy or any other means of reproduction, they shall be granted paid leave from that moment to birth upon their request, and then upon birth their paid leave will continue if requested by that employee as per 2a.
   6. Employees may receive 8% of working days per year of extra paid leave for any reason, excluding paid leave granted by other provisions of this resolution or national holidays.
3. If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists, in which case their paid leave shall be extended until either one month since the initial paid leave ended or the employee in question is employed in a new job, unless it is demonstrably proven beyond reasonable doubt that the employee in question is not making a bona fide effort to find a new job.
4. If an employer chooses to employ an individual in a job that would be held by an employee on paid leave, then said individual shall be removed from that job when the paid leave of the employee that would be holding the job in question is over. The individual filling the job temporarily must be made fully aware of this in advance of being appointed to the job.
5. Employers or member-states are prohibited from discriminating against an employee in any way, directly or indirectly, because they have received, are recieving, applied for or expressed that they will receive in the near future, paid leave. This includes but is not limited to tax discrimination, refusal to provide equal protection before the law, or prosecution of said employees by member states, as well as punishment or termination of employment of said employees by their employers.
6. Member-states must fund paid leave of employees working for an employer in their jurisdiction upon request by that employer, if the paying of said paid leave demonstrably results in sustained economic loss, or amplification thereof, to that employer.
7. Member-states must also fund the remaining paid leave of an employee upon request by their employer if they have been on 2b or 2c paid leave for over one year.

[Eristavia]

This regulation seems to be very nice to every worker. and it should be implemented. I don't know why others are voting against it.

[Tinhampton]

I don't know why others are voting against it.

This proposal is not at vote. You might be looking for this thread - which is for the proposal at vote - instead

[Xanthorrhoea]

A few quick observations. Sorry for the tone, I've had a long day, so I'm not anywhere near as diplomatic as usual (or as I should be):

2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:

1. If the employee in question becomes a parent, or has gained custody in loco parentis, of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby, then they shall be granted paid leave upon request by that employee since becoming parent of, or being granted custody in loco parentis of, said child, until either:
   
   1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
   2. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
   3. that employee loses custody of said child.

2a and 2ai contradict one-another. In most cases, if you gain custody of a child up to (developmentally) 3 years old, you get parental leave. However, if the child is between 8 and 36 months, you immediately lose that leave, as the child is older than 8 months (developmentally). Why have a 3 year threshhold in 2a if 2ai immediately undermines it? I assume there is a reason, but I'm mystified as to what it is.

Additionally, clauses 2a-d can all theoretically cause employees to have infinite leave. This is a bad thing. I note you've attempted to minimise the burden to employers in clauses 6 and 7, however it is insufficient. Firstly, clause 7 does not cover 2a or 2d, which seems an odd oversight. Secondly, the indeterminate length of leave means that employers are obliged to reoffer jobs to employees who have been 'on leave' for many years (as per clause 3). This is ridiculous. Quite apart from anything else, if someone has not been working for years, they will have completely de-skilled in whatever field they were working in. This could also lead to the displacement of whatever person was brought on to cover the 'leave,' which is unfair on them, given that they've been working a 'temporary' job (as per clause 4) for years. There should be a global maximum of leave able to be taken before an employer can simply fire the employee and move on. This urgently requires fixing.

Also, as has been stated in previous discussions on the topic, governments should not be liable for a CEO's full salary, which is exactly what clauses 6 and 7 impose. The liability of governments should be limited to the median wage, or more simply, people should be put on whatever the relevant social support systems exist in a nation.

e. If an employee is in the process of giving birth, whether through egg laying, pregnancy or any other means of reproduction, they shall be granted paid leave from that moment to birth upon their request, and then upon birth their paid leave will continue if requested by that employee as per 2a.

This will lead to discrimination against women (or egg layers/other species wank). If a certain type of employee is entitled to significant amounts of leave that another is not, all other things being equal, an employer will choose the latter. Clause 5 does not protect against this more general discrimination, as employees do not have to request or receive leave for this to occur. The mere fact of their gender is enough, regardless of their actual desire to have children. While explicit discrimination based on gender is illegal, in practice, this is hard to prove and harder to police. Any systemic factor that incentivises discrimination will lead to an increase in discrimination, regardless of legality. This form of leave needs to be accessable by all employees, or none.

As a side note, I do not understand people's approach to parental leave when writing these resolutions. How hard is it to offer a specific amount of time (perhaps based on e.g. no less than 1.5X whatever that species' neonatal period is), and then offer flexibility about when parents wish to take it? All this "X months after birth" and "while pregnant" business seems extremely inelegant and leads to problems like the one I noted/complained about in the paragraph above. Just offer an amount, and let parents decide how best they want to take it.
__________

I'm very confused by the seemingly endless leave that riddles this resolution, and the limitless liability it imposes on governments. Frankly, this is a FAR worse proposal than the one it is attempting to replace. It needs drastic rewrites to be salvagable.

[Apatosaurus]

A few quick observations. Sorry for the tone, I've had a long day, so I'm not anywhere near as diplomatic as usual (or as I should be):

OOC: Hi, thanks for the comments Xan :)

2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:

1. If the employee in question becomes a parent, or has gained custody in loco parentis, of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby, then they shall be granted paid leave upon request by that employee since becoming parent of, or being granted custody in loco parentis of, said child, until either:
   
   1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
   2. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
   3. that employee loses custody of said child.

2a and 2ai contradict one-another. In most cases, if you gain custody of a child up to (developmentally) 3 years old, you get parental leave. However, if the child is between 8 and 36 months, you immediately lose that leave, as the child is older than 8 months (developmentally). Why have a 3 year threshhold in 2a if 2ai immediately undermines it? I assume there is a reason, but I'm mystified as to what it is.

That's... not what it does. The way it works, if you gain custody of a child that is at 3 years old developmentally, you get paid leave until that child becomes 3 years and eight months old developmentally. Same at any other developmental age less than 3 years.

Additionally, clauses 2a-d can all theoretically cause employees to have infinite leave. This is a bad thing. I note you've attempted to minimise the burden to employers in clauses 6 and 7, however it is insufficient. Firstly, clause 7 does not cover 2a or 2d, which seems an odd oversight. Secondly, the indeterminate length of leave means that employers are obliged to reoffer jobs to employees who have been 'on leave' for many years (as per clause 3). This is ridiculous. Quite apart from anything else, if someone has not been working for years, they will have completely de-skilled in whatever field they were working in. This could also lead to the displacement of whatever person was brought on to cover the 'leave,' which is unfair on them, given that they've been working a 'temporary' job (as per clause 4) for years. There should be a global maximum of leave able to be taken before an employer can simply fire the employee and move on. This urgently requires fixing.

The "infinite leave" is there for a reason. If someone is seriously ill in a hospital for, say, one year, but 6 months later are able to work again as normal, then employers should not be able to force them to work under the threat of unemployment. Clause 7 protections are there to prevent the burden on employers, and the "paid leave is extended for one month to find a new job" protection is also there for a reason.

That said, I have (reluctantly) added a provision to cap 2b and 2c paid leave; in 2b:

This paid leave shall end if after eighteen months said employee is unlikely to be able to work comfortably again in the foreseeable future.

while in 2c:

This paid leave shall end if after eighteen months said relative is unlikely to stop requiring such care in the foreseeable future.

As to Clause 7 not covering 2a and 2d, that is fixed.

Also, as has been stated in previous discussions on the topic, governments should not be liable for a CEO's full salary, which is exactly what clauses 6 and 7 impose. The liability of governments should be limited to the median wage, or more simply, people should be put on whatever the relevant social support systems exist in a nation.

Fixed so that Clause 6 is only so that they are no longer in said "sustained economic leave", rather than all of that paid leave. Changed Clause 7 to this, I guess:

During Clause 2 paid leave, employers must pay exactly the same salary to that employee as if they were working, unless they have been on paid leave for over 10 months, in which case that paid leave or the median wage (whichever is lower) shall be funded by the government.

e. If an employee is in the process of giving birth, whether through egg laying, pregnancy or any other means of reproduction, they shall be granted paid leave from that moment to birth upon their request, and then upon birth their paid leave will continue if requested by that employee as per 2a.

This will lead to discrimination against women (or egg layers/other species wank). If a certain type of employee is entitled to significant amounts of leave that another is not, all other things being equal, an employer will choose the latter. Clause 5 does not protect against this more general discrimination, as employees do not have to request or receive leave for this to occur. The mere fact of their gender is enough, regardless of their actual desire to have children. While explicit discrimination based on gender is illegal, in practice, this is hard to prove and harder to police. Any systemic factor that incentivises discrimination will lead to an increase in discrimination, regardless of legality. This form of leave needs to be accessable by all employees, or none.

As a side note, I do not understand people's approach to parental leave when writing these resolutions. How hard is it to offer a specific amount of time (perhaps based on e.g. no less than 1.5X whatever that species' neonatal period is), and then offer flexibility about when parents wish to take it? All this "X months after birth" and "while pregnant" business seems extremely inelegant and leads to problems like the one I noted/complained about in the paragraph above. Just offer an amount, and let parents decide how best they want to take it.

Fixed all of this so that 2x length of pregnancy of paid leave is granted to each parent if they or their spouse are in the process of giving birth or gained custody of a child.

[Apatosaurus]

After thinking on it as per discussion on Discord, I have axed the parts mandating who will pay the paid leave, as that is best dealt with in a future resolution or alternatively left to member-states to decide. As such, Clauses 6 and 7 are now gone entirely (the new Clause 6 is just new clarifications since i. was previously unnecessary and I could not fit ii. previously because of the character limit)

[Xanthorrhoea]

That's... not what it does. The way it works, if you gain custody of a child that is at 3 years old developmentally, you get paid leave until that child becomes 3 years and eight months old developmentally. Same at any other developmental age less than 3 years.

Ah, I see, that makes much more sense. It did seem odd, thanks for the clarification. Having said that, I think the wording is slightly ambiguous, so it might be worth rewording the clause slightly to avoid dummies like me misreading it.

2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:

1. Employees shall be permitted to receive paid leave upon request, for at least twice the length of time of giving birth for an average member of their species, if that employee or their spouse either is in the process of giving birth through pregnancy, egg-laying or any other methods of reproduction, or gained custody in loco parentis of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby. This paid leave shall end if either:
   
   1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
   2. that employee or their spouse is no longer in the process of giving birth except due to childbirth,
   3. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
   4. that employee loses custody of said child.

Good to see the changes. A couple of minor quibbles. The definition of "giving birth" is a bit hazy. I assume you intend it to encompass (in humans at least) the entire pregnancy period. However, one could also easily interpret the phrase to mean the process of labour, which typically lasts hours, not months. I'd reccomend defining the term a bit more to avoid parents being given ~24 hours total of parental leave. Side note, if my assumption is correct, in humans, this would lead to 18 months of parental leave, which I assume would be limited by clause 2ai to just 8 months. It feels a bit clunky having one maximum and then limiting it immediately in the next clause. It might be worth rearranging clause 2a when you're happy with its effects to make it flow better.

I was also initially a bit hesitant about clause 2aii cutting off leave to those who have had an abortion or miscarriage, but I assume personal tradgedy leave would kick in, so I think it's ok.

Regarding clause 2d: the two week limit is a bit problematic with all of the species wank. I'm sure there is a nation of mayflies who will get lifelong leave as a result of this provision (not that i can see how such a short-lived species would maintain an economy of any scale, but roleplayers gonna roleplay). Previous resolutions ran into similar issues. It might be worth abstracting this clause similar to how you've abstracted the rest of clause 2.

[Outer Sparta]

This regulation seems to be very nice to every worker. and it should be implemented. I don't know why others are voting against it.

If this one doesn't have glaring loopholes like the one at-vote, then I could see the amount of support be much higher.

[Wallenburg]

Employees shall be permitted to receive paid leave upon request, for at least twice the length of time of giving birth for an average member of their species, if that employee or their spouse either is in the process of giving birth through pregnancy, egg-laying or any other methods of reproduction, or gained custody in loco parentis of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby.

So, what, 12 hours for a human? What kind of paid leave is that?

This paid leave shall end if either:

1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
2. that employee or their spouse is no longer in the process of giving birth except due to childbirth,
3. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
4. that employee loses custody of said child.

This isn't what anyone would call parental leave. This is a day off for an adoptive parent or emergency hospital leave for birthing a child.

If a personal tragedy occurs to an employee, including but not limited to the death of a close relative or a close relative becoming seriously ill, then said employee shall be granted 2 weeks of paid leave if said employee requests it.

This is a pretty extreme case of one-size-fits-none. Whether it's a cousin developing pneumonia or your child dying you get 2 weeks either way.

If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists. If that job no longer exists, then their paid leave shall be extended until either 3 months since the initial paid leave ended or the employee in question is employed in a new job, unless it is demonstrably proven that the employee in question is not making a bona fide effort to find a new job.

There's a pretty big loophole here: the employer eliminates the job itself and creates a new, near-identical one under a different name. Employers have to give them 3 months more leave but otherwise can freely punish an employee for taking leave.

[Apatosaurus]

/OOC post

That's... not what it does. The way it works, if you gain custody of a child that is at 3 years old developmentally, you get paid leave until that child becomes 3 years and eight months old developmentally. Same at any other developmental age less than 3 years.

Ah, I see, that makes much more sense. It did seem odd, thanks for the clarification. Having said that, I think the wording is slightly ambiguous, so it might be worth rewording the clause slightly to avoid dummies like me misreading it.

Sure.

2. Employers must allow their employees to take, at minimum, the following amounts of paid leave:

1. Employees shall be permitted to receive paid leave upon request, for at least twice the length of time of giving birth for an average member of their species, if that employee or their spouse either is in the process of giving birth through pregnancy, egg-laying or any other methods of reproduction, or gained custody in loco parentis of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby. This paid leave shall end if either:
   
   1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
   2. that employee or their spouse is no longer in the process of giving birth except due to childbirth,
   3. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
   4. that employee loses custody of said child.

Good to see the changes. A couple of minor quibbles. The definition of "giving birth" is a bit hazy. I assume you intend it to encompass (in humans at least) the entire pregnancy period.

Yep, I do.

However, one could also easily interpret the phrase to mean the process of labour, which typically lasts hours, not months. I'd reccomend defining the term a bit more to avoid parents being given ~24 hours total of parental leave.

Fixed.

Side note, if my assumption is correct, in humans, this would lead to 18 months of parental leave, which I assume would be limited by clause 2ai to just 8 months. It feels a bit clunky having one maximum and then limiting it immediately in the next clause. It might be worth rearranging clause 2a when you're happy with its effects to make it flow better.

It would lead to 18 months of parental leave since becoming pregnant (which assuming 9 month pregnancy would be 9 months of "parental leave"), though that's a good point which I had from before I reorganised the parental leave/pregnancy clauses. I axed the 8 months thing to leave that up to parents and/or member-states and instead just used the "4 years of development in a human" cap.

I was also initially a bit hesitant about clause 2aii cutting off leave to those who have had an abortion or miscarriage, but I assume personal tradgedy leave would kick in, so I think it's ok.

Yeah it likely would be considered personal tragedy. The reason it's cut off if they had an abortion or miscarriage is that there's no need for the full parental leave if you're not even going to be a parent. However, since the personal tragedy has been removed that should fit in to 2d paid leave.

Regarding clause 2d: the two week limit is a bit problematic with all of the species wank. I'm sure there is a nation of mayflies who will get lifelong leave as a result of this provision (not that i can see how such a short-lived species would maintain an economy of any scale, but roleplayers gonna roleplay). Previous resolutions ran into similar issues. It might be worth abstracting this clause similar to how you've abstracted the rest of clause 2.

I have opted to remove that clause, actually, as per below.

---

Employees shall be permitted to receive paid leave upon request, for at least twice the length of time of giving birth for an average member of their species, if that employee or their spouse either is in the process of giving birth through pregnancy, egg-laying or any other methods of reproduction, or gained custody in loco parentis of a new child that is less biologically developed than an average 3 year old human baby.

So, what, 12 hours for a human? What kind of paid leave is that?

"Giving birth" means the whole of pregnancy/egg-laying/etc.. I changed that wording as per what Xanthorrhoea said though.

This paid leave shall end if either:

1. the child in question’s biological development since the employee in question gained custody of said child is equivalent to eight months in an average human child of that biological development stage, and that child does not require such care from any caregiver,
2. that employee or their spouse is no longer in the process of giving birth except due to childbirth,
3. that employee clearly requests to end said paid leave, or
4. that employee loses custody of said child.

This isn't what anyone would call parental leave. This is a day off for an adoptive parent or emergency hospital leave for birthing a child.

Same as above, I changed it to make it clearer that it means the whole of pregnancy/egg-laying not just the process of labour.

If a personal tragedy occurs to an employee, including but not limited to the death of a close relative or a close relative becoming seriously ill, then said employee shall be granted 2 weeks of paid leave if said employee requests it.

This is a pretty extreme case of one-size-fits-none. Whether it's a cousin developing pneumonia or your child dying you get 2 weeks either way.

After thinking on this and discussion on Discord, I have opted to axe the personal tragedy leave entirely, to be honest, particularly as it could fit under 2d paid leave. That said, I'll bring it back if people think it's best with it.

If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists. If that job no longer exists, then their paid leave shall be extended until either 3 months since the initial paid leave ended or the employee in question is employed in a new job, unless it is demonstrably proven that the employee in question is not making a bona fide effort to find a new job.

There's a pretty big loophole here: the employer eliminates the job itself and creates a new, near-identical one under a different name. Employers have to give them 3 months more leave but otherwise can freely punish an employee for taking leave.

That would precisely be Clause 5 discrimination. It is termination of employment of an individual because they are a past recipient of paid leave.

---

Other changes:
- Cut the 2x pregnancy parental leave to just 1x pregnancy
- No longer mandates 100%, full pay in all cases
- Updated 2.a.ii because of the potential situation where both spouses are pregnant and then one of their pregnancies ends early but the other does not (thanks to Wallenburg for pointing this out)

[Apatosaurus]

Deputy Ambassador Gravell clears her throat, before speaking the singular word "Bump".

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: Bump

[Apatosaurus]

New draft posted.

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Given a long enough job search and a great enough willingness to go on holiday, anybody can become a "potential recipient of paid leave."

[Apatosaurus]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Given a long enough job search and a great enough willingness to go on holiday, anybody can become a "potential recipient of paid leave."

"Changed to "likely recipient of paid leave in the foreseeable future"."

[Apatosaurus]

Bump

[Apatosaurus]

Bumpity bump; consider this a threat to bring it to last call at some point this week.

[Thousand Branches]

Edits and notes, as per request:

Whereas strong and universal mandates on paid leave are an important necessity to protect the rights of workers, let it be that:

Delete “strong and” considering the strength of a mandate is just the binding nature of all WA mandates.

An “employee” is an individual who is employed by another individual or group in exchange for payment, wages, or any other form of return, as part of an employment contract.

Delete “as part of an employment contract” and just do “an individual who is contractually employed”.

An “Employer” is an individual or group for whom an employee works, and who provides payment, wages, or any other form of return to that employee, as part of an employment contract.

Payment and wages would be the same thing.

“Salary” is payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer as part of an employment contract.

Payment and wages would be the same thing.

“Paid leave” is a period of time that an employee may not be obligated to work for their employer but will still receive the same salary they would receive if they were working.

Christ this is so many definitions. Are the first three all really necessary when they say pretty much the same thing? Anyway,

“may not be” insinuates that it is possible that they could not be working. Instead, just use “is not” to avoid the double meaning.

“will still receive” —> “still receives”

“if they were” —> “when”

If an employee or their spouse either is in the reproductive process or has gained custody of a child who requires such care regardless of other potential caregivers, they shall be granted paid leave if requested bona fide by that employee, unless or until either:

This doesn’t make sense with the list opener. If you’re talking strictly in “amounts” of paid leave, this would have to start with the actual amount of paid leave followed by the conditions. While this is probably more of a problem with the list opener, I’m putting it here anyway. Especially since there isn’t even a defined amount, the list opener should probably say more about paid leave upon the following conditions rather than on exact amounts.

Why is it “spouse” instead of “significant other”? Does one have to be married to get paid leave this way because that’s what “spouse” actually means

Additionally, what is defined as “the reproductive process”? Theoretically that could mean the nine months when someone is reproducing a baby, is that intended? It also does not include any kind of maternity leave after the baby is born in this same definition

I have literally no idea what “or has gained custody of a child who requires such care regardless of other potential caregivers” even means. What does “such care” even refer to? Who are meant to be “potential caregivers”? I’m incredibly confused.

that child no longer requires such care regardless of other potential caregivers,

Again, what does this even mean? Hell, what does “requires” even mean? When is care considered “required”?

neither that employee nor their spouse are in the reproductive process, except due to the birth of said child,

What… so if the mother has a miscarriage? Again, the loose definition of “reproductive process” is what’s messing you up here. I’m sure this is meant to refer to abortion, but people don’t have abortions after the first couple weeks of pregnancy. Are those weeks considered the reproductive process? If so, are companies somehow required to spend 9+ months paying an employee who is contributing nothing to the company?

that employee loses custody of said child, or

That’s just mildly cruel… “sorry you lost custody of your child but also you’re not getting paid anymore!”

such paid leave has extended for a total length of the reproductive process in an average member of that species, whether consecutively or non-consecutively, excluding paid leave granted due to the birth, gaining of custody, or development of a different child.

What.

What is paid leave granted due to the birth? I don’t think any of this included after the baby was actually birthed? Also why even include the average member of that species thing? Average is almost never accurate to actual birth process, so why would we make that assumption? Idek what the “consecutively or non consecutively” is supposed to mean tbh, what species half reproduces, stops, and then just continues reproducing later?

If the employee in question is ill or injured such that they are unable to comfortably work or are likely to transmit their illness, if any, to other employees, then they shall be granted paid leave until they have recovered from said illness or injury such that they can comfortably work again, and are unlikely to transmit said illness, if any, to other employees. This leave shall end if after twelve months said employee is unlikely to be able to work comfortably without transmitting their illness, if any, to other employees, in the foreseeable future.

Oh my god why is this so long…

First of all, this runs into the same problem as the first one in listing the conditions before the amount (I still recommend just changing the opener).

Full rewrite because this is repetitive and convoluted:

“If an employee is unable to comfortably or safely work due to injury or illness, they shall receive paid leave until they have recovered from such illness or injury or until 12 months have passed and said employee will not likely be able to safely or comfortably return to work.”

This essentially says the same thing in simpler terms. “Safely” includes both instances when their injury would affect their own safety (ie on the job injury etc) and the safety of others (ie previous notes of transmittable illness).

If the employee in question has a relative who is seriously ill or injured and no other individual is adequately caring for them, the employee in question shall be granted paid leave upon that employee's bona fide request to care for that relative, until:

I’m not so sure about limiting this to illness and injury. There are several afflictions people face that would require constant care. Senior citizens, for instance, often need geriatric help simply because humans get old and they’re often not fully capable of caring for themselves. Being old isn’t exactly an illness or injury.

that relative no longer requires such care, or

Again, loose definition of “requires”? I’m not sure how you’d make it more specific though

after eight months, said relative is unlikely to stop requiring such care in the foreseeable future.

“after eight months” actually doesn’t work grammatically with the “until” of the clause opener because a comma would be required between the phrases.

How much is the foreseeable future?

Employees may receive 8% of working days per year of extra paid leave for any reason, excluding paid leave granted by other provisions of this resolution or national holidays. If the employee fails to take the full amount of available such leave in that year, then the employee shall be allowed to take the amount of such leave that they did not take that year at any time in the future.

What do you classify as a working day? What about hourly salaries where folks only work a couple hours a day but work all week? Those folks would have more time despite doing the same amount of work, yes? Unless working days refers to an actual set of 24 hours of working in which case this is a pitiful amount of paid leave (a 40 hour work week would amount to less than a week of paid leave in a year [40 x .08 x 52 / 24 = 6.93(r)]).

Rewrite of this section [If the employee fails to take the full amount of available such leave in that year, then the employee shall be allowed to take the amount of such leave that they did not take that year at any time in the future.]:

“Any remaining such leave shall be carried over into the next year.”

Simple, says the same thing.

If an employee finishes paid leave then they must be returned to the same job they had before their paid leave started, unless that job no longer exists, in which case their paid leave shall be extended until either 3 months since the initial paid leave ended or the employee in question is employed in a new job, unless their employer holds a reasonable belief that that employee is not making a bona fide effort to find a new job.

Whatever the heck this clause is supposed to mean, I truly hate it. Rewrite:

“Employees returning from paid leave retain all previous positions and salaries unless said positions no longer exist, in which case their employer must allow them additional paid leave until they are employed in a new position, are not actively searching for a new position, or 3 months have passed.”

If an employer employs an individual in a job that would be held by an employee were they not on paid leave, then said individual shall be removed from that job when the paid leave of the employee that would be holding the job in question is over. The individual filling the job temporarily must be made fully aware of this in advance of being appointed to the job.

What a weird clause to include… my biggest qualm here is that it forces employers to fire any new hire who works in the same position as a worker on paid leave. Like say you’ve got some meat packers, dude gets sick and goes on leave, new dude comes in and takes his job. Upon the return of that old dude, the company is required to fire the new dude and is not allowed to just… have one more meat packer. And the same is true if they hired 22 new meat packers. The position was technically previously held by someone on paid leave, therefore all 22 packers would have to go. I’m sure this was not the intended wording but it absolutely leaves it up to interpretation.

Employers or member-states are prohibited from discriminating in any way, directly or indirectly, against recipients (past or present) of paid leave, or likely recipients of paid leave in the foreseeable future. This includes but is not limited to tax discrimination or prosecution by member states, as well as punishment, requirement to provide money, or termination of employment by their employers.

Rewrite:

“Employers and member-states cannot directly or indirectly discriminate due to receipt of paid leave (past, present, or future). This includes tax discrimination, government prosecution, fines, or termination of employment contract.”

This resolution does not regulate who shall be responsible for funding paid leave, as long as said funding does not discriminate against recipients of paid leave or likely recipients of paid leave in the foreseeable future.

This is simply a reproduction of the last clause and a note that the WA isn’t doing something. Doesn’t seem necessary tbh.

Thats it, edits done, have a great day,

-A

[Apatosaurus]

An “Employer” is an individual or group for whom an employee works, and who provides payment, wages, or any other form of return to that employee, as part of an employment contract.

Payment and wages would be the same thing.

“Salary” is payment, wages, or any other form of return given to an employee by an employer as part of an employment contract.

Payment and wages would be the same thing.

Not necessarily - wages are a form of payment, but not all payment is wages. That said, I axed the word "wages" in favour of just "payment or any other form of return ..."

Additionally, what is defined as “the reproductive process”? Theoretically that could mean the nine months when someone is reproducing a baby, is that intended? It also does not include any kind of maternity leave after the baby is born in this same definition

Yes, it refers to nine months; the leave after the baby is born is granted by "has gained custody of a child who requires such care regardless of other potential caregivers", though I changed that to "has become a parent (whether by adoption, foster care, or birth) of" so that it is clearer.

that employee loses custody of said child, or

That’s just mildly cruel… “sorry you lost custody of your child but also you’re not getting paid anymore!”

That would likely fit under personal tragedy which would in turn likely be taken as 2d leave for "any reason". If they lose custody of that child it obviously I do not believe that their paid leave should still continue for another 2 months or however long it is.

such paid leave has extended for a total length of the reproductive process in an average member of that species, whether consecutively or non-consecutively, excluding paid leave granted due to the birth, gaining of custody, or development of a different child.

What.

What is paid leave granted due to the birth? I don’t think any of this included after the baby was actually birthed? Also why even include the average member of that species thing? Average is almost never accurate to actual birth process, so why would we make that assumption? Idek what the “consecutively or non consecutively” is supposed to mean tbh, what species half reproduces, stops, and then just continues reproducing later?

"Consecutively or non consecutively" in regards to the league, not the prepreductive rpocess.

Employees may receive 8% of working days per year of extra paid leave for any reason, excluding paid leave granted by other provisions of this resolution or national holidays. If the employee fails to take the full amount of available such leave in that year, then the employee shall be allowed to take the amount of such leave that they did not take that year at any time in the future.

What do you classify as a working day? What about hourly salaries where folks only work a couple hours a day but work all week? Those folks would have more time despite doing the same amount of work, yes?

Wouldn't they receive the same days of leave? For example, if you work 1 hour a day, you do not have to work for 8% of the days in that year you would normally have to spend an hour working.

If an employer employs an individual in a job that would be held by an employee were they not on paid leave, then said individual shall be removed from that job when the paid leave of the employee that would be holding the job in question is over. The individual filling the job temporarily must be made fully aware of this in advance of being appointed to the job.

What a weird clause to include… my biggest qualm here is that it forces employers to fire any new hire who works in the same position as a worker on paid leave. Like say you’ve got some meat packers, dude gets sick and goes on leave, new dude comes in and takes his job. Upon the return of that old dude, the company is required to fire the new dude and is not allowed to just… have one more meat packer. And the same is true if they hired 22 new meat packers. The position was technically previously held by someone on paid leave, therefore all 22 packers would have to go. I’m sure this was not the intended wording but it absolutely leaves it up to interpretation.

Fair enough, I suppose I'll axe that clause and leave firing up to reasonable employer theory™.

This resolution does not regulate who shall be responsible for funding paid leave, as long as said funding does not discriminate against recipients of paid leave or likely recipients of paid leave in the foreseeable future.

This is simply a reproduction of the last clause and a note that the WA isn’t doing something. Doesn’t seem necessary tbh.

I think it's worth clarifying that, particularly to avoid contradiction/duplication/house of cards issues with a future resolution regulating who shall fund paid leave.

Rest is all done ^-^

[Apatosaurus]

OOC: I decided to make a pretty big rewrite of this to avoid micromanaging employment law in member states. Feedback on these changes is appreciated.

[Apatosaurus]

"This is getting submitted in 78 hours. Speak now or forever hold your peace. We have also updated the title."

[Thousand Branches]

Against the new title. “Employment leave” does not necessarily refer to paid leave

[Apatosaurus]

Against the new title. “Employment leave” does not necessarily refer to paid leave

Fixed

[Xanthorrhoea]

Fixed

Maybe change it to something like “mandating/enforcing paid leave” or maybe “paid leave guarantee, or “please please please let this be the last we hear about paid leave”? “On paid leave” sounds like an essay written by a student who did not study for the exam.