[DEFEATED] Providing Paid Leave

[Minskiev]

-snip-

Thanks for the feedback, all implemented

I don't like the blocker. I want to submit the actual legislation because I've put effort and research into it. If, however, something dumb comes up and the legislation doesn't work, then I might submit the blocker. But I'll submit the legislation first.

[Maowi]

I don't like the blocker. I want to submit the actual legislation because I've put effort and research into it. If, however, something dumb comes up and the legislation doesn't work, then I might submit the blocker. But I'll submit the legislation first.

Ah okay, that makes sense thanks!

[Minskiev]

Right so this draft. i'll submit it by the end of the day when I check the GA forums and remember it. If you have any feedback, it'd mean a lot.

[Minskiev]

Submitted

[Apatosaurus]

"Why does Section 5 only apply to those who have held a job before? Someone needs unemployment benefits to hold economic security just as much if they once held a job 30 years ago than if they did not. We also disagree with 5b, as it causes unemployment benefits to pay more than nearly half of jobs in that member state, and usually more than most jobs immediately accessible to that worker-in-waiting, thus needlessly hurting economies of member states."

[Fachumonn]

Submitted

This has been approved.

[Minskiev]

"Why does Section 5 only apply to those who have held a job before? Someone needs unemployment benefits to hold economic security just as much if they once held a job 30 years ago than if they did not. We also disagree with 5b, as it causes unemployment benefits to pay more than nearly half of jobs in that member state, and usually more than most jobs immediately accessible to that worker-in-waiting, thus needlessly hurting economies of member states."

1) People fresh out of high school can get jobs at a fast food chain. They don't need 39 weeks of paid leave (39 because their previous wage would be 0).

2) ugh. you're right >_> I'll pull this

[Apatosaurus]

"Why does Section 5 only apply to those who have held a job before? Someone needs unemployment benefits to hold economic security just as much if they once held a job 30 years ago than if they did not. We also disagree with 5b, as it causes unemployment benefits to pay more than nearly half of jobs in that member state, and usually more than most jobs immediately accessible to that worker-in-waiting, thus needlessly hurting economies of member states."

1) People fresh out of high school can get jobs at a fast food chain. They don't need 39 weeks of paid leave (39 because their previous wage would be 0).

"Not necessarily, Ambassador. There could, for example, not be enough available jobs."

OOC: While I still disagree with the fixed numbers in Section 2, once the definition of WIW is changed, I think I can support this now.

[Minskiev]

Pulled because I noticed that there were things that could use better phrasing and that 3. didn't protect workers-in-waiting because w-i-w's received unemployment benefits, not paid leave.

[Minskiev]

Submitted

[Fachumonn]

This proposal has been approved.

Edit: This proposal has reached Quorum.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Using the site on mobile is a bit clumsy, so was this submitted as-is? That is, first post draft text matches submitted text?

There are some issues.

[Minskiev]

OOC: Using the site on mobile is a bit clumsy, so was this submitted as-is? That is, first post draft text matches submitted text?

There are some issues.

I'll need to check

Edit: the first post now matches submitted text.

[Toonela]

This is the first resolution at-vote I've read since becoming more interested in the affairs of the General Assembly that I am having a difficult time finding some textual quibble with. Superb writing. Thank you for submitting this.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Any reason why workers in waiting have to have had a job first? What about people who simply haven't had a job yet? Why are they not entitled to unemployment benefits?

[Santa Byzantina]

This is the first resolution at-vote I've read since becoming more interested in the affairs of the General Assembly that I am having a difficult time finding some textual quibble with. Superb writing. Thank you for submitting this.

Fair enough, then maybe you can offer an explanation to our Holy Empire as well? What exactly is "the lower of the average wage of all workers in that member state" (1c)? The average wage / salary has a specific, mathematical value, which means that there is no room for any kind of "lower" or "higher" values.

Furthermore, that particular section doesn't seem to make any differentiation between various economic sectors / industries, which appears to suggest that the significant incompatibility of the wages of various industries would make no difference whatsoever.

[Toonela]

Sure! I'll need to quote a bit more text to elaborate though:

“paid leave” as a period of time that a worker must not be required to work for their employer or any other party as a part of their employment contract but during which:

that worker still receives the same non-income employment benefits as they would usually receive according to their contract; however
that worker receives at least the lower of the average wage of all workers in that member state and that worker’s usual wages from their member state’s government.

Now, I'll admit that the phrasing here is not exactly as precise as it could be ("and" is likely not the right word to use), but read within its full context, I believe the intent is clear enough. During a period of paid leave the worker either receives the average wage of all workers in that member state or that worker's usual wages if they are a government employee, whichever is lower. Of course, only the author could truly clarify if my interpretation is correct, but it seems the intuitive one to me.

[Santa Byzantina]

Now, I'll admit that the phrasing here is not exactly as precise as it could be ("and" is likely not the right word to use), but read within its full context, I believe the intent is clear enough. [...]. Of course, only the author could truly clarify if my interpretation is correct, but it seems the intuitive one to me.

I had roughly the same general understanding of that section, but that's not what was actually said in the text, after all. The usage of the phrase "lower of the average wage" - as well as that "and" between those two incompatible and mutually exclusive wage amounts - makes no sense at all.

It was exactly my point that the "intent" of any section of the resolution needs to be conclusively and unambiguously expressed in the text as well, instead of leaving people guessing and offering their personal, subjective interpretations.

[Toonela]

I had roughly the same general understanding of that section, but that's not what was actually said in the text, after all. The usage of the phrase "lower of the average wage" - as well as that "and" between those two incompatible and mutually exclusive wage amounts - makes no sense at all.

It was exactly my point that the "intent" of any section of the resolution needs to be conclusively and unambiguously expressed in the text as well, instead of leaving people guessing and offering their personal, subjective interpretations.

While your point is well-taken, I do think the amount of ambiguity is perhaps overemphasized when we dissect these sentences in this manner. I'm not very convinced, for instance, that "lower of" is just as likely in this clause to modify "average" alone, as it quite clearly appears to in fragmentary form, as it modifies both "average wages . . . and that worker's usual wages . . .".

Regardless, if the majority of readers find this clause so difficult to pin down, than hopefully the votes will show it and we can get on with another submission that corrects this (in my mind) fairly minor mistake.

[Fachumonn]

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation has voted FOR this resolution.

[Santa Byzantina]

Regardless, if the majority of readers find this clause so difficult to pin down, than hopefully the votes will show it and we can get on with another submission that corrects this (in my mind) fairly minor mistake.

Well, that was merely the main linguistic issue that our Holy Empire discovered from the text. Even though the initiative itself is highly commendable, there are still several constitutive issues as well that our government finds quite difficult to endorse.

For example, regarding the worker’s dependent’s illness 2(a). As we see it, a situation like that should be addressed by a specific government measure, and the reimbursement should be based on the actual medical costs of the dependent person (which has no relation whatsoever to the salary rate of the aspiring caretaker up until then). People can't be discriminated based on their former salary even in their act of compassion and professional self-sacrifice - which is inherently unrelated to their (former) jobs - as it would de facto amount to institutionalized discrimination by the state.

Also, 7b doesn't seem to take into account whatsoever the economic necessities of the company, nor the rights of the replacement worker(s), as neither of them can be held legally "hostage" by the actions of the workers who've been away on a long-term leave. Those positions need to be filled, obviously, and the replacements can't be treated just as, let's say, disposable assets, either. Otherwise, employers might find excuses to refrain from employing specific demographics (such as young women) altogether, given that they might become viewed as a potential economic liability and an operational risk for the employer.

[Tinhampton]

"Providing Paid Leave" was defeated 8,255 votes to 6,939. (45.67% support)

[Fachumonn]

Time for the blocker... (maybe)

[WayNeacTia]

With any luck this saga is finally over….

[Goobergunchia]

Time for the blocker... (maybe)

Does the delegate from Fachumonn truly believe that this would be a productive use of this Assembly's time?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador